La correspondencia de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 1890-1943, 1910-03-09

Ans,ser Of the american commits
sioners to the proposition, Of the Spa
nish commissioners Of november 8
1898.
The American Commissioners, re-
plying to the Spanish proposition of
the 4th instant, will proceed at once
to- the examination of the grounds
on which the Spanish Commissioners
endeavor to justify their expression
Of surprise at the American propo-
sails Of the 3lst of October on the sub
ject Of the Philippines.
The Spanish argument sets aut
with the erroneous assumption that
the United States bases it's demands
in respect Of the Philippines upon
the terms of the Protocol in the sa-
me sense as it bases It's demands in
regard to Cuba and Porto Rico upon
the terms Of the salne instrument !:
and, proceeding upon this asump-
ton, it finds in the position Of the
: United States on the two subjects
an ninconsistency. The United States
it declares, adhered, in respect of
Cuba and Porto Rico, to the letter"
of the Protocol, while in the case of
the Philippines, it has presented a
demand mot included in or covered
by the articles" Of that agreement.
The American Commissioners are
not disturbed by this charge Of IN
consistency, since they deem it OBJ
viously groundless- They based their
demands in regard to Cuba and Por-
to Rico upon the precise terms Of
the Protocol, because it was in tho
severy terms that the United Sta
teshad made its demands and Spain,
had conceded them, by promising
to "rehnquish all claim Of sovereign
ty over and title to Cuba, and to
"cede'' to the United States Porto
Rico and certain others island. The
United States, in insisting upon the
words Of the Protocol on these sub
jects, merely asked that the precise
concessions Of Spain be made good.
In the cass Of the Philippines, the
United States, except as to the bay,
city, and harbor Of Manila, confined
itself 10 demanding that the subject
should be left in the widest and
fullest sense for fatuBe negotiations.
While it did not, whit the exception
referEed to, demand specific conces-
sions, it reserved and secuzed the
right to demand them. Its position,
therefore, is, notthat its present de-
mands in respect Of the Philippines
were specifically yet cut in the Pre-
tocol, but that they are justified bys
and nolsded in the right which it
therein expressly reserved and secu-
red TO MAKE demands in the. future.
/ Putting aside, however, the erro
neous assumption Of which notice
has just been txken, it appears that
the Spanish Commissioners differ
with tho American Commissioners
as to the scope and. meaning Of the
third article of'the Protocol signed
by the representatives Of the two
Governments at Washington on the
18th of August, 1898. This article is
as follows:
"Artiese 3.-The United States
will occupy and hold the city, bay
and harbor Of Manila, pending the
conclusion Of a treaty of peace, which
shall determine the control, disposi
tion and government of the PhiGppi-
nes''.
The Spanish Commissioners con-
tend that in the negotiation and
settlement Of treaty under this
{ srticle nothing can be demanded by
the United States which impairs the
sovereignty Of Spain over the island,
and that fair construction of the
terms Of the article can require only
such changes in the government Of
the islands, reforms In administra-
ton and kindred changes, as do not
affect ultimate Spanish sovereignty.
1t is the contention on the part of
the United States that this article
leaves to the determination of the
treaty Of peace the entire subject Of
the future government and sovereign
ty of the Philippines necessarily
in the terms used in the
Pnofncnl