Part 35 (1/2)
This census was intended to be preliminary to granting the Filipinos a legislature of their own, but as a legislature full of insurrectos would of course stultify its American sponsors before all mankind, it was announced in effect, in publis.h.i.+ng the census programme, that no legislature would be forthcoming if the Filipinos did not quit insurrecting, and remain ”good” for two years. If they did remain good for two years after the census was finished, then they should have their legislature. During the lull of ”general and complete” peace which, in the fall of 1902, followed the suppression of the Batangas insurrection of 1901-2, and preceded the Ola insurrection of 1902-3 in the hemp provinces of southern Luzon, the Commission made, on September 25, 1902, the certificate contemplated by the above Act of Congress, and the taking of the census was accordingly ordered by the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, by a proclamation issued the same day. [474] Section 7 of the aforesaid Act of Congress provided:
Two years after the completion and publication of the census, in case such condition of general and complete peace with recognition of the authority of the United States shall have continued in the territory of said islands not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and such facts shall have been certified to the President by the Philippine Commission, the President upon being satisfied thereof shall direct said Commission to call, and the Commission shall call, a general election for the choice of delegates to a popular a.s.sembly of the people of said territory in the Philippine Islands, which shall be known as the Philippine a.s.sembly.
On March 27, 1905, the President of the United States was duly advised that the census had been completed, and on March 28th, the presidential proclamation promising the Filipinos a legislature two years later if in the meantime they did not insurrect any, was duly published at Manila. It is true that there is no Philippine state paper signed by anybody, either by the President of the United States, or the Governor-General of the Philippines, or any one else, certifying to a condition of ”general and complete peace” between the certificate to that effect made by the Philippine Commission on September 25, 1902, above mentioned, which authorized commencing the census (and was justified by the facts), and the presidential promise of March 28, 1905, that if they would ”be good” for two years more, they should have a legislature. But the whole manifest implication of the representations of fact sought to be conveyed by the action both of the Was.h.i.+ngton and the Manila authorities at the date of the presidential promise of March 28, 1905, is that a condition of general and complete peace had obtained ever since the last certificate to that effect, the certificate of September 25, 1902. Yet, as we saw in the chapter covering the last year of Governor Wright's administration, besides the Samar disturbances that lasted all through 1905, a big insurrection was actually in full swing in Cavite, Batangas, and Laguna provinces, on March 28, 1905, had then been in progress since before the first of the year, and continued until the latter part of 1905, the then Governor-General, Governor Wright, having, by proclamation issued January 31, 1905, declared Cavite and Batangas to be in a state of insurrection, ordered the military into those provinces, and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. President Roosevelt's proclamation of March 28, 1905, can by no possibility be construed as saying to the Filipinos anything other than substantially this: ”You have not insurrected any since my proclamation of July 4, 1902. If you will be good two years more, you shall have a legislature.” What then was the Philippine Commission to do at the end of those two years, peppered, as they had been, with most annoying outbreaks in various provinces not inhabited by ”Moros or other non-Christian tribes.” During the presidential campaign of 1904 the Commission had committed themselves, as we have seen, to the proposition that nothing serious was going on at that time in Samar. So how could they take frank official cognizance on paper of the reign of terror let loose there by their delay in ordering out the army until after the presidential election, a delay which, like a delay of fire-engines to arrive at the scene of a fire, had permitted the Samar outbreak to gain such headway that it took two years to finally put it down? Then there was the outbreak of 1906 in Leyte, described in the last chapter, as to which even the Commission had admitted in their annual report for that year [475]:
Possibly its [Leyte's] immediate vicinity to Samar has had to do with the disturbed conditions.
In other words, possibly, a fire may spread from one field of dry gra.s.s to another near by.
As to the Cavite-Batangas-Laguna insurrection of 1905, in an executive order dated September 28, 1907, [476]--noticed in a previous chapter, but too pertinent to be entirely omitted here--wherein are set forth the reasons for withholding executive clemency from the condemned leaders of that movement, Governor-General Smith describes in harrowing terms ”a reign of terror, devastation, and ruin in three of the most beautiful provinces in the archipelago,” wrought by the condemned men, who he says ”a.s.sumed the cloak of patriotism, and under the t.i.tles of 'Defenders of the Country,' and 'Protectors of the People'
proceeded to inaugurate” said reign of terror. These men were most of them former insurgent officers who had remained out after the respectable generals had all surrendered. This Cavite-Batangas-Laguna insurrection was the very sort of thing which the conditional promise of a legislature made by Congress to the Filipino people in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of July 1, 1902--the Philippine Government Act--had stipulated should not happen. This is no mere dictum of my own. In the case of Barcelon against Baker, 5 Philippine Reports, pp. 87 et seq., already very briefly noticed in a previous chapter, the Supreme Court of the Islands had, in effect, so held. Section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, had provided that if any state of affairs serious enough should arise, the Governor of the Philippines should have authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus ”when in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion the public safety may require it.” Sections 6 and 7 of the same Act had provided, on the other hand, that if a condition of general and complete peace should prevail for a stated period the Filipinos should have a legislature. In the case of Barcelon against Baker the Supreme Court held that the situation contemplated by Section 5 of the Act of Congress had arisen in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas. That, of course, automatically, so to speak, made the postponement of the Philippine a.s.sembly a necessary logical sequence, under the provisions of Sections 6 and 7. These Sections 6 and 7 promised the Filipinos a legislature in the event the conditions contemplated by Section 5 should not arise. Barcelon, who was one of the (non-combatant) reconcentrados restrained of his liberty at Batangas, claimed that his detention as such reconcentrado by the defendant in the habeas corpus proceeding, the constabulary officer, Colonel Baker, was unlawful, in that, he being charged with no crime, such detention deprived him of his liberty without due process of law. The Philippine Commission, however, had declared, by virtue of the authority vested in it by Section 5 of the Act of Congress aforesaid, that a state of insurrection existed in Cavite and Batangas, and accordingly the Governor-General had suspended the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law in those provinces. The Attorney-General representing the Philippine Commission before the court rested the Government's case on the proposition that the pet.i.tioner was not ent.i.tled to claim the ordinary ”due process of law” because ”open insurrection against the const.i.tuted authorities”
existed in the provinces named. And the Supreme Court upheld his contention. In so holding, they say, among other things (page 93), in construing Section 5 of the Act of Congress we are considering:
Inasmuch as the President, or Governor-General with the approval of the Philippine Commission, can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only under the conditions mentioned in the said statute, it becomes their duty to make an investigation of the existing conditions in the archipelago, or any part thereof, to ascertain whether there actually exists a state of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion, and that the public safety requires the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. When this investigation is concluded, and the President, or the Governor-General with the consent of the Philippine Commission, declares that there exists these conditions, and that the public safety requires the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, can the judicial department of the Government investigate the same facts and declare that no such conditions exist?
They answer ”No!” The head note of the decision is as follows:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in the Philippine Islands in the case of rebellion, insurrection, and invasion, when the public safety requires it, by the President of the United States, or by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands with the approval of the Philippine Commission.
Thus the Supreme Court of the Islands squarely held that on the fourth day of August, 1905 (the day the writ of habeas corpus was made returnable), open insurrection existed against the const.i.tuted authorities in the Islands, in the provinces named, and had existed since the Executive Proclamation of January 31st, previous, declaring a state of insurrection, and on that ground denied the writ. Yet the Commission certified on March 28, 1907, that a state of general and complete peace as contemplated by the Act of Congress conditionally promising a legislature, had prevailed for the two years preceding. In other words the Philippine Commission declared a state of insurrection to exist in certain populous provinces, and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Islands in so doing, and later certified to the continuance of a state of general and complete peace covering the same period.
All the uncandid things--uncandid in failure to take the American people into their confidence--that have been done by all the good men we have sent to the Philippines from the beginning, have been justified by those good men to their own consciences on the idea that, because the end in view was truly benevolent, therefore the end justified the means. As a matter of fact, American Benevolent a.s.similation in the Philippines has, in its practical operation, worked more of misery and havoc, first through war, and since through legislation put or kept on the statute books by the influence of special interests in the United States with Congress, ”than any which has darkened their unhappy past”
to use one of Mr. McKinley's early expressions deprecating doing for the Philippines what we did for Cuba. [477]
But let us see just how much the Philippine Commission that signed the peace certificate of March 28, 1907, swallowed, and how they swallowed it. It will be observed that they sugar-coated their certificate with a lot of whereases. The first of these recites President Roosevelt's promise of March 28, 1905, that the Filipinos should have a legislature two years thereafter ”provided that a condition of general and complete peace with recognition of the authority of the United States should be certified by the Philippine Commission to have continued in the territory of the Philippine Islands for a period of two years”
after the proclamation. Whereas number two, it will be noted, goes on to state that there have been ”no serious disturbances of public order save and except” those in Cavite, Batangas, Samar, and Leyte, [478] the magnitude of which has been fully described in previous chapters. Of the Cavite-Batangas insurrection, the only one they had previously formally admitted to be an insurrection, they say it was ”caused by certain noted outlaws and bandit chieftains [naming them], and their followers.” Obviously this was hardly sufficient to show that an insurrection they had once officially recognized as such was not in fact such at all. So in order to justify a statement that ”a condition of general and complete peace” had continued in these two great provinces of Cavite and Batangas, which they had but shortly previously declared to be in a state of insurrection, and been upheld by the Supreme Court in so doing, they resort to the old Otis expedient of 1898-9, worked on the American people through Mr. McKinley to show absence of lack of consent-of-the-governed. This expedient, as we have seen in the earlier chapters of this book, consisted in vague use of the word ”majority.” It had stood Judge Taft in good stead in the campaign of 1900, because when he then said that ”the great majority of the people” were ”entirely willing”
to accept American rule, there was no earthly way to disprove it in time for the verdict of the American people to be influenced by the unanimity of the Filipinos against a change of masters in lieu of independence. It was the only possible expedient for an American conscience, because every American naturally feels that unless he can, by some sort of sophistry, persuade himself that ”the majority”
of the people want a given thing, then the thing is a wrong thing to force upon them. So the ethical hurdle the Commission had to leap in order to sign the certificate of 1907 was cleared thus:
The overwhelming majority of the people of said provinces have not taken part in said disturbances and have not aided and abetted the lawless acts of said bandits.
As a matter of fact, the report of the American Governor of Cavite--and conditions were conceded to be identical in the two provinces of Cavite and Batangas--shows that the reason it was so hard to suppress the Cavite-Batangas troubles of 1905 was that the people would not help the authorities to apprehend the outlaws. No doubt the King of England would have signed a similar certificate as to the people of the s.h.i.+res and counties in which Robin Hood, Little John, and Friar Tuck, held high carnival. Of course I do not mean to libel the fair fame of that fine freebooter Robin Hood and his companions by placing the rascally leaders of the bands of outlaws now under consideration in the same jolly and respectable cla.s.s with those beloved friends of the childhood of us all. But the Cavite-Batangas ”patriots” of 1905 could never have given the authorities as much trouble as they did if the people had not at least taken secret joy in discomfiture of the American authorities. Until finally suppressed, all such movements as these always grew exactly as a snow-ball does if you roll it on snow. Says Governor Shanks, a Major of the 4th United States Infantry, who was Governor of Cavite, in 1905 in his report for that year, [479]
in explaining the uprising under consideration, and the way it grew: ”The Filipino likes to be on the winning side.” Certainly this is not peculiar to the Filipino. Governor Shanks proceeds:
The prestige acquired (by the uprising) at San Pedro Tunasan, Paranaque, Taal, and San Francisco de Malabon had great weight in creating active sympathy for ladrone bands and leaders. Something was needed to counterbalance the effect of their combined successes, and the appearance of regular troops was just the thing needed.