Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-07-11
NO OPERA BOUFFE WAR
Gen. Anderson's Account of
Fall of Manila.
He LOST l22 MEN
REPLY TO STATEMENTS BY AD-
MIRAL DEWEY.
Declares There Was No Understanding
With the Spaniards Regard
ing the Battle.

ing the Battle.
CHICAGO, July 11.-General Thomas NJ
Anderson has addressed to the Record Her
aid letter giving his version of the sur
render of Manila, in which ne differs ma
terially from the statements made by Ad-
miral Dewey. General Anderson's letter is
in chief as follows:
NATIONAL SOLDIERS HOME,
Erie County, Ohio, July 8.
ITO the Editor-Admiral Dewey Is quoted
as saying in his evidence before the Senate
Philippine committee that when Manila was
surrendered it was in pursuance of def
mite understanding between him and the
Spanish governor general. Including his
statement, he said that his views did not
coincide with those expressed by General
Anderson in a magazine article and closed
his testimony by saying: We differed very
much from the beginning Admiral Dewey
Is great naval officer. He did the state a
great service. Yet, l must say, with all
Difference. that he Is mistaken in his state
ment in relation to the surrender of Ma
MIA so sincere Is my regard for the ad-
mlral that l would not make this assertion
put lor the 1act that such statements, when
ullcohtradicted pass into history.
Father McKinnon's Statement.
Several days before the assault made on
August 13, Father McKinnon. the Catholic
chaplain of the 1st California. was permit
ted to pass our lines and go into Manila
lie saw the archbishop and the governor
general and, when he returned he report
ed that the latter told him he could not and
would not surrender without a fight. as he
had to hight for the honor of Snain Subse
quently, General Merritt directed me to
draW up the tactical order for the attack
anu anu, inns was done on the assumption that
.hefe "ouid De bona tide resistance In
the attack and the preceding skirrnishes 1rn
lost ~ killed and wounded
II the city was surrendered as a result of
d ueLnlte understanding what was the un-
ueIs.anding q. and how definite was it? Was
II that American soldiers We're to be sacri-
need for the honor of Spain?
Inc admiral says We differed verv much
IRON the beginning. l hope our countrymen
VIII VIII peileve that We differed very much
ABOUT this. If there ever was such an nm
derstanding 1 did not know it and the army
did not know it.
Inc admiral is reported to have testi-
he'd that the Spanish authorities offered to
surrender to him the day he DESTROYED tha
Spanish squadron. No written proposaIs
have come to light, and the proba bflitias
are that he was deceived by the misrepre-
sentations Of the foreign consus, who were
endeavorlng by all means in their mower
to prevent a bombardment
Correspondence With Aguina1do.
Il now learn for the first time that NV
correspondence with Aguinaldo was not ap-
proved by the admiral. Permit me to re-
mark that he had no occasion for a CORE
spondence. When he took possession of
the Cavite navy yard he doubled the wages
of several hundred Fiiipinos working there.
That did not require any correspondence
re
induce Aguinaido to start his insurrection
1t Is not difficult to induce men to do what
they wish to do.
Il wrote some letters to AguinaIdo which
seemed necessary at the time. lie had
arrested some of our officers for entering
the town Of Cavite without his permission.
He had forbidden his people to supply us
with lighters to land our men and ma
terials. We required land transportation
and he hid all the carts. We could only
buy fuel and forage from him. Finally he
forbade us to land on the sacred soil of
l.uZon. We did not pay any attention to
this last impertinence, but in regard to
the other disagreements l thought a cor
respondence was justifable expedient.
If. however. l had known as much about
him at that time as everybody seems to
know now, l might have arrested him then
without correspondence.
Deweys Statement Misleading.
Referring now to my original PROPOSE
tloh that Admirai DeWeyS statement In
reference to the surrender of Manila was
misleading, wish to say that no doubt the
admiral and Gen. Merritt both thought
that they had made an agreement with the
Spanish authorities by which the city could
be taken without boodshed Yet, the fact
remains that Capt. Gen. Augustin was re-
lieved because he was willing to make such
a capitulation while his successor refused
to do so. AS TO this, both the admiral and
the general commanding must have been
misinformed.
Speaking for the I'd Division of the Sth
Army Corps, permit me to say that it's at
tack on the defenses of Manila was not in
the nature of an opera bouffe demonstra-
tion.
(signeO THOMAS NJ ANDERSON"
Admiral Dewey Refused to Comment.