The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-07-11
ANDERSON,S VERSION.
The General Makes Reply to Admiral
DeWey,s Testimony.

Chicago, July 11.-General Thomas w.
Anderson has addressed to the Record
Herald letter giving his version of
the surrender of Manila, in which he
differs materially from the statements
made by Admiral Dewey. General An
derson's letter is in brief as follows:
National Soldiers Home, Erie County,
Ohio, July 9.-To the Editors: Admiral
Dewey is quoted as saying in his evil
dence before the senate Philippine COM
mission that when Manila was surren-
dered 1t was in pursuance of definite
underSta nding between him and the
Spanish governor general In conclud-
ing his statement he said that his views
did not coincide with those expressed
by General Anderson in magazine ar
tic1e, and closed his testimony by say
ing:
I'VE differed very much from the be-
ginning
Admiral Dewey is a great naval Off
Ger. He did the state great service. Yet.
I must say, with all Difference, that he
is mistaken in his statement in relation
to the surrender of Manila. So sincere
is my regard for the admiral that I
would not make this assertion but for
the fact that such statements, when
uncOntradicted pass into history.
Several days before the assault made
on the 18th of August Father McKin-
non, the Catholic chaplain of the First
California, was permitted to pass our
lines and go into Manila He saw the
i,
and when he returned he reported that
the latter told him he could not and
would not surrender without a fight, as
he had to fight for the honor of Spain.
subsequently Gen Merritt directed me
to draw up the tactical order for the
attack and this was done on the as
sumption that there would be bona
fde resistance. In the attack and the
preceding skirmishes we lost 122 killed
and wounded. If the city was surren-
dered as result of definite under
standing, what was the understanding,
and how definite was it? Was it that
American soldiers were to be sacrificed
for the honor of Spain?
The admiral says we differed very
much from the beginning. 1 hope our
countrymen will believe that we differ
ed very much about this. II there ever
was such an understanding / did not
now 1t and the army did not know it,
that the Spanish authorities offered to
surrender to him the day he DESTROYED the
are that he was deceived by the misrep-
were endeavoring by all means in their
power to prevent a bombardment.
correspondence with Aguinaldo was not
approved by the admiral Permit me to re-
snonenee When No be took
wages Of several hundred Filipinos work
respondence. Nor did it require any cor
respondence to induce Aguinaldo to start
his Instruction. It is not difficult to in
duce men to do what they wish to do.
wrote some letters to Aguinaldo which
seemed necessary at the time. He had ar
rested 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 mater
ials. We requested land transportation and
he hid all the carts. We could only buy
fuel and forage from him. Finally he for
babe to land on the sacred coil of Luz
ION. We did not pay any attention to this
last impertinence, but in regard to the
other. disagreements I thought CORE
spondence was a justifable expedient- If,
however, had known as much about him
then as everybody seems to know now,
/ might have arrested him then without
correspondence.
Referring to my original proposition that
Admiral Dewey's statement in reference to
the surrender of Manila was misleading, I
wish to say that no doubt the admiral and
General Merritt both thought that they
had made an agreement with the Spanish
authorities by which the city could be
taken without bloodshed- Yet the fact re-
mains that Captain General Augustin was
relieved because he was willing to make