The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1898-08-22
MONDAY. AUGUST p, 1898.
The Surrender at Manila.

1t is to be supposed that Gen. Mer-
rift acted under specific instructions in
the matter of the surrender at Manila.
The reason for this assumption is the
extraordinary character Of the agree
ment and the fact that before he left
San Francisco the fall of the city was
confidently expected, and all the cir
cumstances could be foreseen. There
fore it would not be fair to hold him
responsible for anything defective in
the articles OF surrender or for any
thing approaching the burlesque in the
form of the proceedings.
Gen. Merritt must have had a better
idea of what this war was for than
the agreement with the Spanish COM
mander at Manila suggests. That Ad-
miral Dewey. the moment his ships
were relieved Of the duty of lombard
ing the town, sent some of them to
occupy different ports Of the islands,
is an indication that the naval COM
mander had a comprehensive grasp OF
the object of the war which is lacking
in the document TO which Gen. Mer-
ritt's commissioners signed their
names.
Even before the formal surrender the
proceedings came perilously near to
opera bouffe-the American comman-
der assuming control OF the Spanish
column and directing its movements.
Either the reports from Manila are
not clear as TO the closing scenes of the
fight, or there was a strange arrange
ment between the c0mbatants before
the surrender was made. The appar-
ent agreement of the Spaniards and
Americans to suspend hostiIities in or
der TO watch the Insurgents when the
latter should appear, but to continue
fighting each other in their absence, is
at least on the verge of the comic.
The strange consideration shown to
the enemy in the terms of capitulation
is quite in line with a fraternal COM
bination against the forces of Aguin-
aldo. Not only is there no mention of
any territory except the city of Manila
and it's suburbs-as though the end OF
all cur labOrs and pains was only that
but the Spanish officers and men are
not regarded as prisoners of war. They
are to retain their liberty, and it is
formally agreed that their arms are all
to be restored to them, the officers
keeping their horses as well as side
arms. In fact, it is specifically stated
that they are not prisoners of war, and
are not TO be treated as such, except
in the drawing of rations from the
Americans.
1t is to be considered that this agree
the signing Of the protocol at Washing
ton. AS far as Gen. Merritt knew, war
was still in progress. 1t is safe TO say
that such a surrender is without a
parallel in the history of real war
Who is responsible for this remark
able affair? AS we have said, there Is
reason TO think Gen. Merritt, a soldier
not ignorant of custom in such mat
tiers. received particular instructions
before or after leaving this country
Then, too, he must have been aware of
the indignation and laughter with
which the proposition was received
that Torals army should have its guns
back 1t is not credible that in the
face of that experience he would allow
such terms to be framed. Who, then,
is guilty OF his instructions? Who has
originated this amiable policy which
robs war Of so much of its unk:nd-
ness?