The record-union., 1898-11-18
CONTROL AND DISPOSITION OF
THE GOVERNMENT"


government Of the Philippines were
used, what was meant? The exact
words of Article III. are:
The United States will occupy and
hold the city, bay and harbor of Ma
Mia pending the conclusion of a treaty
of peace, which shall decide the con-
troll and disposition Of the government
Of the Philippines.
The sentence must be interpreted ac-
cording to the rules obtaining in the
construction Of statutes. The whole
subject matter must be taken into con-
sideration with a view Of ascertaining
what was intended to be conveyed by
the words employed.
AS for the words themselves, their
plain and obvious meaning must be
aseertained and given effect, but their
relation to the subject matter, and to
possible modifying and explanatory ex-
pressions is to be kept in view. What
now was the subject matter? The set
tlement of terms of peace between two
about permanent peace.
But at the time of the signing Of the
protocol it was not known to either
party that the United States forces had
actually captured the city of Manila.
The protocol then conceded that we
were to take and occupy the city, and
to the Peace Commissioners was left
the decision of the control and dispo-
sition Of the government of the Phil
ippines"
The words control and disposition of
the government therefore necessarily
related to the Philippines as a terri
tory captured. What then was it
which was in dispute? Clearly that
which related to the terms upon which
either the government control of the
islands might be retained by the Unit
ed States or returned to Spain.
This therefore involved of necessity
the admission that the power Of con-
troll and disposition Of government had
in whole or in part passed out of
Spain, and were de facto entirely or in
part within the grasp of the United
States. We cannot see therefore. how
the contention can be maintained that
by the use Of the words quoted the
United States admitted control to be
stlH in Spain. Rather the plain and
obvious intent in using the words was
to have considered by those arranging
the terms Of peace, all matters con-
corning the control of the Philippine
Government by the United States not
by Spain, the latter being interested
only to the extent of securing protec-
ton to and justice for her people who
had passed under the Jurisdiction of the
victor in war.
The words certainly did not relate
10 any thought in the mind of either
party to the protocol, that there was
any doubt whatever as to the fact
that Spain's title had been negatived
broken and set aside By the act of
war. If, as the Spanish Peace Com
missioners contend, the words quoted
meant that the United States conceded
that Spain had not been dispossessed
nor her jurisdiction broken down. then
why were not words distinctly afirma-
tive Of that concession used.
Clearly this was what was meant
namely, that in adjusting the terms of
peace Spanish individual rights affected
by control and disposition of the Phil
ippine government by the United
States should be considered, but not
the question whether Spain or the
United States was in possession and
exercised control. The use Of the word
disposition" must be taken to imply
the power to dispose Of. If Spain had
that power and it had not been broken.
then the word was unnecessary and
was used without meaning or intent
and such thing as that is not think
able.
The word government was used un-
derstandingly if at all The Philippines
were already governed, therefore it was
unnecessary to use words concerning
control Of government except it was
meant to convey the idea that new
forms Of government were to be pro-
vided. By whom? Assuredly by the
new possessor. In the provision of
such government Spain should be
heard, because vast body Of her SUBJ
jects resided in the islands, held prop
erty there, and they being non-combat-
ants were entitled to have their per-
sonal rights and property possessions
safeguarded in the treaty looked for
ward to by the makers Of the protocol.
If Spain, as she contends, already
controlled the Philippines and never
parted with control Of the government,
why was the word control" used in
the protocol? Surely for the purpose of
doing justice to rights which war is
not supposed to affect, those of non
combatants. property respected in war,
such as churches, hospitals, educational
institutions, etc.
However looked at we cannot see
ground for the Spanish contention that
the words quoted are to be construed
as conceding unbroken Spanish sover-
eighty over the Philippines On the
contrary they We're used to express the
fact that such sovereignty was at an
end, and that new order of things
had been set up. but an order in the
final adjustment of which it was fair
and just Spain should be consulted or