The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-11-17
CRISIS EXPECTED SATURDAY
CLAIMS SOVEREIGNTY OVER
THE PHILIPPINES.
War officials at Washington Max
ing Active Preparations for
the Possible Resumption
Of Hostilities
Special Dispatch to The Call.


PARIS. Nov. 1e.-The meeting to-day
of the Spanish American Commission
ers began at 2:15 p. m. and ended at
3 p. m.
The Spanish Commissioners present
ed a long document in answer to the
American argument which was sub
mitted last week BY mutual consent
the memorandum of to-day was hand
ed to the Americans without being read
and the meeting adjourned until Sat
urday. The Spanish communica-
ton will be translated this evening and
it's contents will be discussed by the
United States Commissioners to-mor-
row at the usual daily session.
The Spaniards, in their communica-
ton to-day reaffirmed the position
which they assumed against the discus
sion here of SPANS Philippine sover-
eighty. They insist that the words
| shall determine the control, disposi-
ton and government of the Pnlllp-
pines" in Article III OF the peace
proctol do not warrant any reference 70
SPANS withdrawal from the Phlhp-
mines except on her own terms, and
therefore the Spaniards propose arbi-
tration on the construction TO be placed
on the words 1.-The control, disposition
and government.
In signifying their willingness to SUD-
nit the Philippine article of the pro
tocol to a third party for CONSTRUCTION
the Spanish commissioners urged TO-
day that as there is obviously a differ
e.1ce of opinion regarding the phrase
the control, disposition and govern
ment of the Philippines" possibly the
result of a misunderstanding, the
Spaniards should no more be asked to
surrender their view than the Amerl-
cans to surrender theirs.
The memorandum points out that
deadlock exists which might be broken
by arbitration on the contending views,
to which the Spanish Commissioners
are quite ready TO submit. The latter
declare that they have no idea of sug-
costing arbitration as to the main is
sue, which touches the national honor
of both sides, but they are willing to
accept exterior aid to clear the path
of negotiations.
It is safe to say that the American
Commissioners viii not consent to in
woke exterior aid to construe the terms
of their own protocol.
Another part of to-day Spanish
memorandum fatty asserts, upon the
authority Of NJ. Cambon's reports Of
the protocol negotiations between
Washington and Madrid, through him,
that President Mckinley at no time
ODJ6ClGQ " Spain ACoCA f1hAOA ~ AA-N
sovereignty in the Philippines
This allegation is directly opposed to
the American record on the same sub
| ject Judge Days note to M. Cambon,
dated August 10 and already made
public, informed him that SPANS note
of August 7, accepting the terms OF
peace laid down by the United States,
was not explicit, and proposed a pro-
| tocol to reduce both parties to eXactf-
| tude The American Commissioners
now hold that the protocol itself was
born of SPANS attempt to restore her
Philippine sovereignty, through the
| Spanish memorandum to-day squarely
challenges the contention.
Moreover, the Spanish Commission
ers to-day have alleged that President
McKinley's objection to Spain's phrase
ology in accepting the terms OF peace
was based solely, SO far as was made
| known upon this sentence in the Span
! ish acceptance: They accepted the
proffered terms subject to the approval
| of the Cortes of the Kingdom, as re-
quired by their constitutional duty
! The Spanish memorandum Of to-day
! holds that M. Cambon answered the
| American objection to this by pointing
| out that the American terms were prof
| fered subject to the approval Of the
| Americans, but that President McKin-
| ley replied that he did not desire to In
! volve the internal affairs Of Spain in
| the proceedings on hand.
! The Spanish memorandum also asks
why, if the United States objected to
SPANS reservation of sovereignty, they
did not plainly say SO in the protocol
| and leave no room for argument. 1t
asks why Judge Days note of August
! 10 did not clearly declare that the Unit
ed States would not recognize such
reservation and that the protocol was
necessary to prevent misunderstand-
| ing of that point.
Tt also asks why Judge Days note
practically ascribed the inexplicit form
| of SPANS acceptance of the terms to
telegraphic errors, while the exact
terms of SPANS reservation of SOW
ereignty, as held in Washington before
the protocol, are now being quoted In
the proceedings here.
This portion of the Spanish memo
randum is based upon letters written
by M. Cambon at the time, purportine
to describe interviews and transac-
lions attending the peace terms and
! protocol.
On Saturday, the date fixed for the
next meeting, the Americans will make
their response, in the course of which
| it is not unlikely that the exact terms
and precise time limit of their accept
L