The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1903-10-15
THE AMERICAN.
SPANISH WAR.

THE AMERICAN.
SPANISH WAR.
sContinusd frosa arst pa9s.)
they invited" the American Commissioners
''to enter upon the discussion of the other
points to be embodied in the treaty, Mt the
outset to take up the discussion of the
Philippine Archipelago, and, to propose to
the Spanish Commissioners what they I'M
derstand should be agreed upon in said
treaty with respect to this subject"
THE QUESTION OF THE PHILIPPINES.
The Joint Commission was thus brought
face to face with the question of tho Philip
pines. 10 this question the American
Commissioners had given much considera-
ton since their arrival in Paris. They had
ing his own views orally, brought with
him from Manila, for the information Of
the American Commissioners, communica-
tons from Gen. Il. " Greene and other
officers in relation to the condition of
things In the Archipelago. They. had ex-
amined Mr.. John Foreman, who, from
1880 to 1898, q period of Is years, had
and whose book on the islands is stand
ard authority. They had also taken the
testimony OF other persons, competent to
speak on the subject, besides obtaining q
mass of information, some in print and
some in manuscript, on the various aspects
of the situation. All these things they
communicated either textually or in sub
stance, according to the circumstances, to
their Government, with which they were,
as is always the case in these days of tele-
graphs and fast steamers, in constant cor
respondence through the whole course of
the negotiations.
BARGAINING FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
/ The proposal Of the American Commits
sioners on the subject of the Philippines
was presented at tho 18th conference,
which was held on the 31st Of October. 1t
provided for the cession Of the whole
group, but stated that the American Com
missiOners were prepared to insert in the
treaty a stipulation for the assumption
by the United States of any existing in
debtedness Of Spain incurred for public
works and improvements of pacific char.
acter in the islands. On receiving this
proposal, the Spanish Commissioners asked
for an adjournment in order that they
might examine 1t "and either accept it OF
present a counter proposal" The kernel
of this reply. a. 1t turned out, lay In the
latter alternative. At the next conference
which was held on the 4th of Novem Der
the Spanish Commissioners submitted q
counter-proposal In the form of an argu-
mentative memorandum, in which-after
contending that the protocol Of the 18th OF
August did not Justify demand for the
cession of the whole group and that the
capture of Manila BY the American forces,
after the signature of that instrument
| though in fact before news of its sigma.
ture was received in the islands, was, in
view of the agreement for suspension of
hostilitics, unlawful-they declared that
the treaty Of peace ought to provide for
the immediate delivery of Manila to the
Spanish Government, the immediate re-
lease of the Spanish garrison, the return
to the Spanish Government of all funds
and public property taken by the Ameri-
can army since the occupation of the place
as well as of all taxes collected prior to
it's restoration, and for an indemnity to
Spain for the damage occasioned by the de-
tention of her troops as prisoners, to which
was to be ascribed the spread of the
TagaIs instruction in Luzon and its ex-
tension to the Visayas and the ill-treatment
Of Spanish prisoners, civil and military, by
the natives. They concluded by inviting
the American Commissioners to present a
proposition concerning 1.-THE control, dis
position and government" of the Philip
pines which should conform to 1.-THE stip-
ulations of Article III" of the protocol.
10 tNlS aTpuiueHtdtlVe cOuuteT-pTopOSui,
the American Commissioners submitted at
the 18th conference, on the 18th of Novem-
Der, an extended reply. Obviously, the
principal point at issue between the two
Commissions was the proposal for the ces-
sion of the group. The American Com
missioners did not controvert the general
principle that acts of war, committed af-
ter a general suspension of hostilities. do
not afford basis for a claim of title by
oh oh nfc In
mitted prior to the receipt of notice of the
suspension; but they pointed out that by
the third article Of the protocol the United
States was TO occupy and hold the city,
bay and harbor of Manila pending the con-
clusion of treaty of peace" and that the
occupation thus expressly provided for i'm
ported a military occupation. with all the
rights and powers of government legally
incident to such occupation. The great
subject of controversy, however, was the
effect to be given to the words control,
disposition and government" Did the
stipulation that tho treaty of peace should
determine the control, disposition and
government Of the Philippines" warrant a
demand for the cession of territory? Did
they authorize a demand for the transfer
of sovereignty over the group or any part
of it?
AN UNSATISFACTORY ANSWER.
We have seen that the words in ques-
ton were first used in the note of the goth
of July, in which the terms on which the
United States would enter upon negotia-
tons for peace were conveyed to the Span
ish Government, and that the reply of the
Spanish Government on this point, as Civ
en- in its note Of the 7th of August, was
unsatisfactory. The exact words of that
note, which was presented in English,
were as follows:
"The terms (of the President of the
United States) relating to the Philippines
seem, to our understanding, to be quite in
definite. On the one hand, the ground on
which the United States believe them.
selves entitled to occupy the bay, the har.
Dor and the city of Manila, pending the
conclusion Of a treaty of peace, can not be
that of conquest, since, in spite of the
blockade maintained on sea by the Ameri
can fleet, in spite Of the siege established
| cxI