New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-13
THROW
MACARTHUR'S TESTIMONY
AGFINALDO'S COOPERATION NOT
WANTED BY AMERICANS AT
CAPTURE OF MANILA
AGTINALDO'S

CAPTURE Ot MANILA
Washington, April 1.-THE Senate Committee on
the Philippines began its proceedings to-day by
adopting resolution offered by Senator Carmack.
calling the Secretary of War for all the orders,
circulars and official reports received from COM
manders and their subordinates in the provinces
Of Tayabas Batangas. Samar and Laguna.
General Macarthur was the only witness before
the committee. and his examination begun by
Senator Culberson- His questions referred to the
relationship between the native forces and the
American troops when the latter first landed at
Manila. Senator Culberson called attention to the
fact that there Is testimony file TO the effect
that General Anderson had written Aguinaldo
inviting his cooperation Manila. and that the
latter had accepted and that it is also said that
General Merritt had himself sent aid to General
Greene suggesting that arrangements be made
with the Filipinos for a common understanding In
the occupation of the trenches. He then asked
If. in view OF these facts, the inference was not
authorized that friendly cooperation desired
by the American commanders with the Filipinos
in the attack upon the Spaniards.
Assuming the facts to he $ stated the wit
ness replied. II that were all there is in the
premises il might be admitted that inference
TO be drawn indicated. But there other
facts which form part Of the case. and which
show the cooperation in the attack on Manila was
voluntary part"
General Macarthur then said that the evening
previous 10 the attack Manila. after General
Merritt had issued his order Of battle, he (Mac-
Arthur was in consultation with General Ander-
when Anderson received communication
from General Merritt directing him to inform Agut
naldo that the battle which to take place the
day be between the Americans and
the Spaniards. and that he must take part
under any circumstances Agunaldo was at that
time. General Macarthur said, five miles away,
and the message him by wire. He
knew. however that the Filipino leader had re-
ceived ii. because he had declined to accept the
suggestion. and he and his native forces had
taken part IN the engagement the next day What
had become Of that communication General Mac
Arthur said he did not know. He also said that
if there had been cooperation between Aguinaldo
and General Anderson while the latter in
command OF the American forces he did not
know it.
Senator Patterson then asked series Of ques-
tons intended TO bring out the fact that there
had been an understanding between the American
commander, General Merritt. and Admiral Dewey
and the Spanish commanders that the attack on
Manila should be mere fent with the view OF
securing surrender with appearance OF bat
tie, but without real fight
IF there such agreement the fact never
reached ne as q brigadier general said General
Macarthur. and I have never yet heard ii Off
cially. All my orders were for battle
Have you any question now, as a soldier and
officer Of the army. that there was an under
standing that the resistance Of the Spanards was
to be purely nominaI?" Senator Patterson asked
Yes I have q good deal OF question that
point" replied the witness. Il have never seen
anything TO justify such opinion outside Of
understood the order to be for fight and ali that
has come to me to the contrary has been ex parte
Have You never talked with General Merritt on
the .s,I subject
official information and information that may
have TO you through other sources?
M d 5ots6 Rs f th seFs the truth the whole
Mr. Patterson Insisted on an explicit reply TO his
Trre declared
could not answer more directly. He added that he
Senator Cuiberson reiterated the statements con-
corning General Merritt,s first dealings with The
Fpinos as TO the use Of the trenches and also the
order 10 General Anderson, cited by General Mac
asked If that was not "a change Of policy on Mer-
ritt's part after he had reaped the benefit Of CO.
operation with the native troops
WILL NOT SPEAK FOR MERRITT
This question practically brought TO a close Cen
eral MacArthur's statement for the day, the re-
nainder Of the time betng given UP 10 q discus
sion among the members OF the committee as 10 its
propriety Before this controversy arose. how
ever the witness ndicated that he preferred not 20
make direct reply. The facts are Of record he
said What General Merritt's policy do not
there was any Inconsistency in his conduct and II
there should appear 10 the committee to have nee1
be 70 md willing 70 explain It prefer that ne
Senator McCornas Insisted that the question was
not legitimate: that it called for inference and
The discussion was extended Republican members
generally contending that the question called TOT
q mere opinion and was in order and the
Democrats holding that II asked for a statement
of fact and legitimate. Senator Lodge as
chairman of the committee. held that it com
TaranT To ask the witness his opinion given
subject but when the question involved criti-
csrn OF superior officer. which was in itself
brea oh Of military discipline, he did not believe the
committee had right TO ask it that the witness
could be compelled answer it
The ruling was freely commented on by the Dem.
ocrarc members calculated 70 rob the inquiry OF
much OF its usefulness, and they appealed from
the ruling OF the chair. a vote was about 10 De
taken when the hour of adjournment arrived. ana
no vote was recorded.
BEFORE the committee adjourned Mr.. Patterson
was permitted ask question, which ne safd ne
5id AZ the instance Of representative OF the Boer
csI,ea as 10 whether General Macarthur had any
lr1ouvjedge Of the enlistment of Americans IN the
PhiIipnes for service IN the British army in South
Africa = -