"The fact that the a.s.sembly has refused to approve of the bill referred to by Governor Forbes, bespeaks the legislative ability of our a.s.semblymen, while, on the other hand, the pa.s.sage by the Commission of said bill indicates either the incompetency or the negligence of the Commissioners. Do we have slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines or not? If we do not, the bill to abolish it is unnecessary. If we do, it is also unnecessary, because the Act pa.s.sed by Congress, creating the present Philippine Government, which serves as our const.i.tution, already prohibits slavery and compulsory service, and, therefore, no act of the Philippine Legislature is needed to declare it illegal."

This is a puerile quibble. The act referred to prohibits slavery, but does not penalize it.

"If there is slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines, the Governor-General as the Chief Executive, and the members of the Philippine Commission, who, with the Governor-General, compose the executive department of the Islands, are all of them guilty in not enforcing and executing the const.i.tution of the Archipelago."

False. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has held that the "const.i.tution" here referred to is non-enforceable without exactly such suppletory legislation as the commission pa.s.sed and the a.s.sembly tabled.

"If there is anything in the Philippines akin to slavery or compulsory service, it can not be found in the provinces to which the legislative jurisdiction of the a.s.sembly extends."

Utterly false.

"Should there be such a thing in the territories inhabited by the few non-Christian Filipinos, which are under the exclusive control of the Philippine Commission, I am sure the slaveholders can only be the Government officials, who are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Honourable Dean C. Worcester, the head of the executive department in charge of said territories."

False and absurd. The larger majority of existing slaves are held by Christian Filipinos. Not a single official in the territory in question was subject to appointment or removal by me. Not one has ever owned a slave, to my knowledge. This statement ill.u.s.trates Quezon's disregard for the truth.

"It will not be out of place to indicate here the reason wherefor the Philippine Commission has pa.s.sed the bill alluded to by Governor Forbes. The members of the Philippine Commission are sternly opposed to Philippine independence. Moreover, they are opposed to allowing the Filipino people to have a legislature wholly const.i.tuted of natives for reasons too apparent to be mentioned. One of their everyday arguments is 'that the premature withdrawal of the United States would result in the establishment of an oligarchy composed of small and favoured ruling cla.s.ses who would oppress the ma.s.ses.'

"The pa.s.sage by the Philippine Commission of the anti-slavery bill placed the Philippine a.s.sembly in a very awkward position (as it was perhaps intended to do); to concur in the pa.s.sage of the bill was to admit that there is such a thing as slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines, which is not a fact. To reject the bill would be construed as indicating that the members of the a.s.sembly were advocates of slavery. The moral courage of our a.s.semblymen was shown when they took the former course, that of truth. The members of the Commission denounce the att.i.tude of their colegislators as proof of lack of sympathy for the ma.s.ses of the people."

False, interesting, and important. There were four Filipino members of the commission at this time, all of whom were in favour of ultimate independence, and one of whom was a leading advocate of immediate independence. All voted for the anti-slavery laws which the a.s.sembly refused to pa.s.s.

The Filipinos were not wholly to blame for the existence of slavery at the time of the American occupation, but the politicians are unable to grasp the fact that the way to deal with a cancer is to cut it out, not to deny its existence, and by their refusal to legislate have now made themselves fully responsible for the continued existence of slavery and peonage in the regularly organized provinces of the Philippines. The Filipino newspapers have even gone so far as to claim that there could be no slavery until a law defined it, hence to enact such a law would create slavery.

Resident Commissioners Earnshaw and Quezon were prompt and emphatic in their denials of the existence of slavery when Senator Borah read in the Senate Chamber my letter to Dr. Stillman. Sr. Earnshaw did not know any better. Sr. Quezon claims to know the facts. He himself has said:--

"As a Filipino familiar with the facts in the case, I do not hesitate to qualify the letter of Secretary Worcester as being at once false and slanderous. It is false, because there does not exist slavery in the Philippines, or, at least, in that part of the country subject to the authority of the Philippine a.s.sembly. It is slanderous because it presents the Philippine a.s.sembly, by innuendo, if not openly, as a body which countenances slavery."

He was unquestionably familiar with the facts, or many of them. Did he know of the report of the Filipino Governor Dichoso, describing slavery in Isabela; of that of the Filipino Governor Corrales, describing slavery in Misamis; of that of the Filipino Governor Pimentel, describing the sale of Filipino children into slavery to Chinese; [75] of that of the American Governor George Curry, describing slavery in Isabela; [76] of that of the American Governor Knight, describing slavery in Nueva Vizcaya; [77] of that of the Filipino Governor Sanz, [78] describing the enticing from their homes of numerous Filipino children of Romblon and the disposal of them as peons or slaves; of the reports of army, constabulary and police officers; and of the records of courts on slavery and peonage? Under the circ.u.mstances explanation or retraction would seem to be in order, but we have had from him only two more puerile quibbles. In a published statement he has said that slavery does not exist as an inst.i.tution in the Philippines. Who ever said it did? It exists there as a demonstrated fact, and it ought to be made a crime. In another published statement, [79] Quezon says:--

"The allegation is a most serious one and we think it desirable to meet the charge directly without hesitation by a.s.serting that it is unqualifiedly false and that the accusations made in the report are not only not sustained, but cannot be sustained by any evidence tending to show that such a 'system' exists."

The placing in quotation marks of a word not used by me fairly ill.u.s.trates one of the typical methods of the Filipino politician, and for this reason alone I refer to it and to the following statements from the same editorial, which will serve a similar purpose:--

"There is a very serious aspect of this report of Commissioner Worcester's. If the system he speaks of exists and is known to him--indeed has been known to him for a long time--why did he never correct it? He says that the Philippine a.s.sembly has blocked action. The truth is that he and his fellows had absolute power long before the Philippine a.s.sembly ever came into existence.

"... Mr. Worcester now practically admits that he knew of similar conditions elsewhere than among the Moros, but that he never had anything to say about them and allowed them to go on until, it would seem, he thought that he could make some political capital out of a controversy with the Philippine a.s.sembly regarding anti-slavery legislation."

It did not lie in my power to correct it. On the Philippine Commission rests the full responsibility for failure to enact anti-slavery legislation from the time when it first learned of the existence of this crime among the Filipinos until it pa.s.sed its first act prohibiting and penalizing it on April 29, 1909. As I have already shown, the matter was dealt with, in 1903, by directing the inclusion of proper legislation in a proposed new Penal Code never completed. Valuable years were then lost in testing the adequacy of existing law, and when it proved inadequate further time was, in my opinion, needlessly wasted in drafting the necessary act. To this extent, and to this extent only, the commission shares responsibility for existing conditions. Since April 29, 1909, that responsibility has rested on the a.s.sembly alone.

I have given two of the reasons for its refusal to act. There is another, but I should have hesitated to give it, as it would have been hard to prove, had not Speaker Osmena furnished the necessary evidence. He is commonly considered to be the leading Filipino statesman of the day, so special importance attaches to his utterances and he, if any one, can speak with authority concerning the att.i.tude of the a.s.sembly. The ominous rumble from the United States which reached these distant sh.o.r.es led him to give out a newspaper interview explaining the inactivity of that body. He said:--

"Never has Mr. Worcester attempted to furnish us with the facts which he has placed before Congress. The bill itself was sent to the a.s.sembly for action but on account of the unfriendliness of the members for the secretary of the interior and the lack of sympathy between the a.s.sembly and him, it was not given the consideration that it would have received if Mr. Worcester had at the same time sent us the facts which he has sent on to the United States.

"Mr. Worcester as the secretary of the interior, and not as commissioner was in duty bound to furnish the a.s.sembly with the facts that he claims to have found. It is the duty of all of the administrative officers of the government to enlighten the legislature and to furnish it with information gained officially by them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Worcester showed that he was not anxious for the a.s.sembly to consider the matter by never once even mentioning the subject to me, as is customary with other matters for legislation which the secretaries have wished taken up by the a.s.sembly."

If this were not so pathetic it would be very, very funny. The a.s.sembly is now made up of 81 Filipino delegates representing 34 provinces. An unfeeling American secretary of the interior, residing at Manila, is charged with having failed to inform them of what was going on under their very noses. All information deemed by the commission necessary to justify legislation was transmitted by me to that body when we lost our slavery case in the Supreme Court.

Never during all the years that this matter has been pending has there been the slightest suggestion that the a.s.sembly desired to receive information concerning it. If its members were to tell the half of what they themselves know about slavery and peonage the facts which I have been able to gather would fade into insignificance, but this is not the important thing in this interview.

The important thing is that dislike of the person who happened to introduce in the commission a bill prohibiting slavery and peonage in the Philippines is considered a valid reason for the refusal of the a.s.sembly to consider it during four successive years.

Shall thousands of suffering human beings be allowed to go on sweating blood for such a reason?

It is my earnest hope that as a result of the publicity which has now been given this matter there will be speedy action, either by the Philippine Legislature or by the Congress of the United States.

I hope that every right-minded person who reads these lines will insist that we have done with concealment of the truth and suppression of the facts; have done with boggling over hurting the feelings of the Filipino people; and will demand that those who have power to end the disgraceful conditions which now exist in the islands shall promptly and effectively exercise it.

The native press has naturally bitterly opposed any investigation of the truth or falsity of my statements. The following extract from a recent editorial is typical of its att.i.tude:--

"Slavery is not slavery unless it has the characteristics of frequency and notoriousness. Is there here, or has there ever been, at least since Christian civilization has reigned, anything that resembles it? Where is, or who has seen previous to now, such characteristic slavery? Mr. Worcester? Let him point it out, let him give a detailed account of it, let him define it. What will you bet that he will not do so? How is he going to do it if it does not exist! It was enough for him to say: "There is slavery in the Philippines" for men, press, government officials and every stripe of public elements in America to admit the possibility of the affirmation and even an investigation of its likelihood to be ordered.

"That is simply absurd. The mere investigation is an offense. The proof must come solely from, and must be demanded solely of, him who imputes the charge. If he does not demonstrate it, if he does not make it patent, further investigation is not needed. All that there was to investigate is investigated: it is that he has lied."

Nevertheless aroused public sentiment in the United States has forced action here. Governor-General Harrison called the matter to the attention of the a.s.sembly in his first speech, and that body is now [80] investigating it. Unfortunately there is grave reason to doubt its good faith.

It allowed me to leave Manila without the faintest suggestion that it desired to hear me, and then had the governor-general cable me an invitation to testify and to a.s.sist in the investigation when I was halfway home and could not possibly return.

a.s.semblyman Sandoval, defending in the public press a friend charged with buying a Tagbanua slave who had been thrice sold, says that the several purchasers did not buy the unfortunate man but bought his debt. A debt is not ordinarily purchased for itself and it is admitted that in this instance the man went with it.

The Filipino politicians have hardly approached this matter in a judicial spirit, and the timid and the politic, who refused to give me the information they might have furnished, had some reason for their fears.

The removal of Judge Ostrand and Director of Education Crone, who gave valuable testimony, was loudly demanded on the ground that they were "traducers of the Filipino people."

The people were urged to "get together" and disprove my statements.

I have been denounced as an enemy of "the Filipino people."

It has been claimed:--