The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-03

nit me TO thank you for the fuliness
and care with which you have answered
my Inquiry and to express my appre-
citation of the painstaking manner In
which you have treated the subject
Your deductions from the authorities
you cite and from, the facts which You
allege are web and forcibly drawn. ana,
admitting your facts to be true, your
argument must be admitted 10 be con-
elusive But, unfortunately, as with
your permission 1 VIII presently show.
you have been proceeding, as to the
facts in the two cases under compare
son. upon entirely false premises
But first let me make more clear ana
unequivocal the precise question we are
discussing. We must bear distinctly In
mind that we are not considering the
Snherent and absolute right of the Unit
ed States TO acquire ownership of the
Philippines as an isolated question by
itself. We are comparing this right
with the right TO acquire California and
the rest of the territory obtained from
Mexico. We are assuming, L believe,
that the title to California was good.
This being understood. / contend that II
our title to California was good, our
title to the Philippines is equally good,
and that il there are elements IN the
latter which might be accounted as
flaws or defects, their counterparfs are
10 be found in the case of the former
Now for your facts. Not to go te-
diously into detail. there is one prin-
cipal and fundamental assumption of
fact which appears in various forms
throughout your article and forms the
chief basis of your argument. You
proceed upon the theory that Spain was
not the owner OF the islands and that
her authority and sovereignty over
them was in dispute prior to her war
WIT nc L w q
excitement of the conflict and from the
bitter feeling against Spain then nat
urally existing, this notion was hastily
accepted by many as the truth, and
very likely was, as you say, conceded
by the newspapers" But we are not
concerned now with the hasty assump-
lions of an excited people, nor the
concessions of equally excited news
papers, at the time of an outbreak of
war. We are to be governed, on the
contrary, by the true facts of the case
as they have been ascertained and es-
tablished by subsequent and deliber-
ate investigation.
In the first place the United States
never, either by attitude, declarations
or admissions (unless it foe by the con
cessions of the newspapers') disputed
the right or title of Spain to the archl-
pelago. The fact of the purchase itself
is a sufficient answer TO that. By that
purchase the title of Spain was dis
tinctly recognized and acknowledged.
1t was not the ownership of Spain
which was disputed. 1t was her manner
of using and governing what was her
own that was objected TO. There is
very marked difference between these
two propositions.
Nor was the sovereignty of Spain
ever disputed by the natives them
selves, very widespread and oft-re-
unit y,
standing. You by Inference proceed
upon the mistaken assumption that the
rebellion of 1896 (Which, by the way,
had been quelled prior to the arrival
of Admiral Dewey and the battle of
Manila baye. was an effort to secure
national independence. But such was
by no means the fact. The fact is that
it was simply an effort to force from
Spain certain specific reforms. The real
truth is that for over 300 years the SOW
ereignty of Spain over the Philippines
had been universally acknowledged.
There had been revolts owing TO real or
fancied grievances (as there were in
California against Mexico in the early
40s) but the sovereignty itself of Spain
had never been disputed.
To examine in detail some of your
statements. you state that Admiral
Dewey, Consul Pratt and others recog-
nized the Tagal government. Certain
it is that they never recognized it as
an independent government, though
they may have recognized it as a pro-
Visional and temporary form of govern
nent. But even IL they had recognized
it as an Independent government (and
we have Admiral Dewey's word for it
that they did not), such recognition
would not bind the United States, for
it does not appear that any of these
officials had authority to act for the
n0 Ia i'm
portant a matter.
You say prior to the February out
break that Spain had utterly failed,
after eco years of incessant warfare, TO
subdue the natives or to extend her
Jurisdiction beyond Manila and a few
cities on the Seacoast." Also, Since
Spanish authority had been ended in
the Philippines-an authority based
upon considerations we did not feel
bound 10 respect-an authority which
vas founded upon an unfinished con-
quest. Whence came the right Of
Spain to sell that which she had not?"
These statements are based upon an
utterly erroneous conception OF the
facts. Spanish sovereignty was never
questioned There were outbreaks
among the tribes from time TO time,
as there are IN India under British
rule. and there have been among our
own Indian tribes. but they were far
tbs rising of 1896 there had been no
outbreaks in the islands for twenty
four years Moreover. you seem to as
sumo that because the SDaniards did
not oceupy every square foot of the
islands, therefore they did not own
them. ! need not point out 10 you that
actual possession is not necessary to
constitute ownership. If it were true
thar the inhabitants Of the islands had
disputed the sovereignty of Spain,
there might be something in your con-
iention. But such were not the facts.
and SPANS authority was not. as you
quest" 1t is true that this country
forciby Ousted Spain from her pos
session, but il would indeed be taking
novel position TO hold that forcible
custer effects diVestiture OF title. And,
therefore. to your question. WHO did
possess the rights of ownership and
possession in, the Philippines if Spain
did not between the close of war and
the ratification Of the treaty." my an
sr'er is. nobody. Spain had the right
of ownership ana had been forclbly
dispossessed by us. She conveyed her
right of ownership TO this country by
the treaty, and this perfected our title.
In the comparison which you draw
at the close OF your editorial between
the case of the Philippines and that of
California, your statements. as l am
constrained to say 10 you at the risk
OF appearing uncivil, are 50 uniformly
erroneous that 1 Will not take them UP
in detail. I will. on the other hand, as
briefly as possible state the facts re-
lating TO each case as / have discoy-
cred them from standard authorities to
be. and let the striking parallel between