CHAPTER VII

THE TREATY OF PARIS

No man can serve two masters.

Matthew vi., 24.

Confine the Empire within those limits which nature seems to have fixed as its natural bulwarks and boundaries.

Augustus Caesar's Will.

This is a tale of three cities, Paris, Washington, and Manila.

Article III. of the Peace Protocol signed at Washington, August 12, 1898, provided:

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, disposition, and government of the Philippines. [141]

The "Papers relating to the Treaty with Spain" including the telegraphic correspondence between President McKinley and our Peace Commissioners pending the negotiations, were sent to the Senate, January 30, 1899, just one week before the final vote on the treaty, but the injunction of secrecy was not removed until January 31, 1901--after the presidential election of 1900. They then were published as Senate Document 148, 56th Congress, 2d Session. It was not until then that the veil was lifted. The instructions to the Peace Commissioners were dated September 16, 1898. The Commissioners were: William R. Day, of Ohio, Republican, just previously Secretary of State, now (1912) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; Whitelaw Reid, Republican, then editor of the New York Tribune, now Ambassador to Great Britain, and three members of the United States Senate, Cushman K. Davis, of Minnesota, William P. Frye, of Maine, Republicans, and George Gray, of Delaware, Democrat. Senator Davis died in 1900, and Senator Frye in 1911. Senator Gray has been, since 1899, and is now, United States Circuit Judge for the 3d Judicial District. Among other things, the President's instructions to the Commissioners said:

It is my earnest wish that the United States in making peace should follow the same high rule of conduct which guided it in facing war. * * * The lustre and the moral strength attaching to a cause which can be confidently rested upon the considerate judgment of the world should not under any illusion of the hour be dimmed by ulterior designs which might tempt us * * * into an adventurous departure on untried paths.

By elaborate rhetorical gradations, the instructions finally get down to this:

Incidental to our tenure in the Philippines is the commercial opportunity. * * * The United States cannot accept less than the cession in full right and sovereignty of the island of Luzon.

Though already noticed, we venture, in this connection, again to recall that in the month previous (August, 1898) a gentleman high in the councils of the Administration [142] declared in one of the great reviews of the period: "We see with sudden clearness that some of the most revered of our political maxims have outlived their force." Among these "revered maxims" thus suddenly fossilized by his ipse dixit, Mr. Vanderlip exuberantly includes the teachings of "Washington's Farewell Address and the later crystallization of its main thought by President Monroe"--the Monroe Doctrine, adding that in lieu of these "A new mainspring * * * has become the directing force * * * the mainspring of commercialism."

As permanent chairman of the Philadelphia convention which renominated Mr. McKinley for the Presidency thereafter, in 1900, Senator Lodge, speaking of the issues raised by the Treaty of Paris, said: "We make no hypocritical pretence of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. We believe in Trade Expansion."

"Philanthropy and five per cent. go hand in hand," said Mr. Vanderlip's Chief, Secretary of the Treasury Lyman J. Gage, about the same time. Such was the temper of the times when the treaty was made.

The first meeting with the Spanish Commissioners took place at Paris, October 1st. The opening event of the meeting, the initial move of the Spaniards, is extremely interesting in the light of subsequent events, especially in connection with the Iloilo Fiasco, hereinafter described (Chapter IX.).

"Spanish communication represents," says Judge Day's cablegram to the President, [143] "that status quo has been altered and continues to be altered to the prejudice of Spain by Tagalo rebels, whom it describes as an auxiliary force to the regular American troops."

Even diplomacy, in a conciliatory communication limited to the obvious, called the Filipinos our allies.

The Spanish initial move was more immediately prompted by the fact that in point of absolute astronomical time Manila, though captured when it was morning of August 13th there, was captured when it was evening of August 12th, at Washington, and the protocol was signed at Washington in the evening of August 12th. While this point was material, because we had captured $900,000 in cash in the Spanish treasury at Manila and much other property, the title to which, under the laws of war between civilized nations, depended on just what time it was captured, the matter was finally swallowed up and lost sight of in the agreement to give Spain a lump $20,000,000 for the archipelago. But the initial move had other aspects. In the event we should take the Philippines off her hands, Spain was going to insist that we should get back from the Filipinos, our "allies," and restore to her all the Spaniards they captured after August 12th. She knew that in all probability if we bought the Islands we would be buying an insurrection, and she was "taking care of her own" at our expense.

The next feature of the proceedings entitled to attention in a bird's-eye view like this, concerns the question whether we should take only Luzon, or the whole archipelago. President McKinley cabled Admiral Dewey on August 13th, the day after the protocol was signed, asking as to "the desirability of the several islands," "coal and other mineral deposits," and "in a naval and commercial sense which (of the several islands) would be most advantageous." [144] Admiral Dewey had replied, of course, that Luzon was "the most desirable," but volunteered no advice. He did state, "No coal of good quality can be procured in the Philippine Islands," which is still true. Allusion is made to this telegram in the proceedings, but no copy of it is there set forth. On October 4th, our Commissioners wired President McKinley suggesting that he cable out to the Admiral and ask him "whether it would be better * * * to retain Luzon * * * or the whole group." Mr. McKinley answered that he had asked Admiral Dewey before General Merritt left Manila to give the latter his views in writing "on general question of Philippines," and that "his report is in your hands in response to both questions." But the commission replied that Admiral Dewey had sent only a copy of a report of General Francis V. Greene's and nothing else. There is no record of any further advice or opinion from Admiral Dewey on the point except that in General Otis's Report (p. 67) we get glimpses of a telegram that has never yet, apparently, been published, sent by Dewey to Washington early in December, 1898, suggesting that we "interfere as little as possible in the internal affairs of the Islands." No; Admiral Dewey must be acquitted of having ever counselled the McKinley Administration to buy the Philippines.

On October 7th the Commission telegraphed Washington that General Merritt attaches much weight to the opinion of the Belgian Consul at Manila, M. Andre, and that "Consul says United States must take all or nothing"; that "if southern islands remained with Spain they would be in constant revolt, and United States would have a second Cuba"; that "Spanish government would not improve," and "would still protect monks in their extortion."

To this advice there was absolutely no answer. It was a case of "all or nothing," and it had already become a case of "all" when on September 16th previous Mr. McKinley signed his original instructions to the Commission stating "The United States cannot accept less than Luzon."

The Commission's telegram of October 7th goes on to quote from the Belgian Consul's opinion that "Present rebellion represents only one half of one per cent. of the inhabitants." The Consul was not before them in person. They were quoting from a memorandum submitted by him to General Merritt at Merritt's request, made at Manila and dated August 29th, the day General Merritt sailed away from Manila bound for Paris via the Suez Canal. He had brought the memorandum along with him. From the previous chapters the reader will, of course, understand that Americans and Europeans at Manila in August, 1898, were paying very little attention to Aguinaldo and his claims as to the extent of his authority in the provinces. It is therefore not surprising that M. Andre's memorandum of August 29th should have made the foolish statement, "Present rebellion represents only one half of one per cent. of inhabitants." But it is eternally regrettable that his statement on this point had any weight with the Commissioners, for it was, or by that time at least (October 7th) had become, just about 99 1/2 per cent. wide of the mark. As a matter of fact, by October 7th it would have been more accurate to have said, in lieu of the above, "Present rebellion represents practically whole people." You see, we started an insurrection in May, in October it had become a full grown affair, and in December we bought it. The telegram of October 7th also quoted General Merritt as saying, "Insurgents would be victorious unless Spaniards did better in future than in past," and as considering it "feasible for United States to take Luzon and perhaps some adjacent islands and hold them as England does her colonies." These are about the only two sound suggestions General Merritt made to that Commission. In the next breath they quote him as saying, "Natives could not resist 5000 troops." The fact that they did resist more than 120,000 troops, that it took more than that, all told, to put down the insurrection, is sufficient to show how much General Merritt's advice was worth. He was right on two points, as indicated. Both Spanish fleets had been destroyed and Spain had but one left to protect her home coast cities. The death knell of her once proud colonial empire had sounded. Decrepit as she was, she could not possibly have sent any reinforcements to the Philippines. Besides the Filipinos would have "eaten them up." General Merritt's suggestion to "hold them as England does her colonies" was also sensible. In fact that was the only thoroughly honest thing to have done, if we were going to take them at all. England never acts the hypocrite with her colonies. She makes them behave. She does not let native people preach sedition in native newspapers, because of "sentimental bosh" about freedom of the press, until the whole country becomes a smouldering hot-bed of sedition. She has blown offending natives from the cannon's mouth, when deemed necessary to cure them and their country of the desire for independence. If we are going to have colonies at all, we ought to govern them with the upright downright ruthless honesty of the British. It is more merciful in the long run. But we ought not to have colonies at all. For if there is one thing this republic stands for, above all other things, it is the righteousness of aversion to a foreign yoke.

In their telegram of October 7th, [145] the Peace Commissioners, now squarely confronted with the question of forcible annexation, begin to let the Administration down easy. They say:

General Anderson in correspondence with Aguinaldo in June and July seemed to treat him and his forces as allies and native authorities, but subsequently changed his tone. Merritt and Dewey both kept clear of any compromising communications.

A despatch sent by Judge Day certainly comes from high authority. The word "compromising" is therefore important. To say that Admiral Dewey did not treat Aguinaldo as an ally is to raise a mere technical point. But Aguinaldo never did get anything from him in writing. What he got consisted more of deeds than words. And actions speak louder than words. We had an alliance with Aguinaldo, a most "compromising" alliance and afterwards repudiated it. Admiral Dewey made it and General Merritt repudiated it. Dewey did, without the President's knowledge, exactly what the President and the American people would have had him do at the time. And Merritt did exactly what the President ordered him to do. But between the making of the alliance, and the repudiation of it, the President and the American people changed their minds. I say the American people, because they afterwards ratified all that Mr. McKinley did. You see the bitterness that lies away down in the secret recesses of the hearts of the Filipino people to-day has its source at this point. They had "a gentleman's agreement," as it were, with us, not in writing, made at a time when the thought of a colony had never entered our minds. They fought in a common cause with us on the faith of that agreement--drove the Spaniards into Manila in numerous victorious engagements involving much loss of life, on their part, keeping the Dons thereafter bottled up in Manila on the land side while their "ally" Admiral Dewey was doing the same on the sea side. The said Dons were living on horses and rats, and famine was imminent when our troops arrived and began to finish the work of taking the beleaguered city. And then, having changed our minds and decided to annex the islands, we repudiated our "gentleman's agreement," on the idea that the end justified the means. And the end, as it has turned out, did not even justify the means, seeing that the islands have proved a heavy financial liability instead of a profitable asset. Judge Day's telegram to Secretary Hay of October 12th (p. 27) contains this curious and surprising passage as to Cuba:

Senator Gray in favor of accepting sovereignty unconditionally * * * that we may thereby avoid future complications with Cubans, claiming sovereignty while we are in process of pacifying island * * * We desire instructions on this point.

The future of Cuba, however, trembled in the balance but for a moment. Before "the shell-burred cables" had had time to quit vibrating with the question thus propounded, there came back this splendidly clean-cut answer from the President:

We must carry out the spirit and letter of the resolution of Congress [declaring war].

In characterizing Judge Gray's position, above indicated, as "surprising," no reflection upon him is intended. On the contrary, such a position, assumed by a man of such conceded intellectual probity, is illuminating as to the attitude subsequently taken concerning the Philippines by the Democratic Senators who voted for the treaty. This attitude is stated by Senator Lodge, in his History of the War with Spain, with all the incisive forcefulness to which the country has so long been accustomed in the public utterances of that distinguished man, and, seeing that no promise had been made, as in the case of Cuba, Senator Lodge's statement of the position of those who voted for the treaty should forever set at rest the stale injustice, still occasionally repeated, that Mr. Bryan, "played politics" in 1898-9 in urging his friends in the Senate to vote for its ratification. Says Senator Lodge (History of the War with Spain, p. 231):

The friends of ratification took the very simple ground that the treaty committed the United States to no policy, but left them free to do exactly as seemed best with all the islands; that the American people could be safely entrusted with this grave responsibility, and that patriotism and common sense alike demanded the end of the war and the re-establishment of peace, which could only be effected by the adoption of the treaty.

October 14th, Washington wires the commission that Admiral Dewey has just cabled:

It is important that the disposition of the Philippine Islands should be decided as soon as possible. * * * General anarchy prevails without the limits of the city and bay of Manila. Natives appear unable to govern.

In this cablegram the Admiral most unfortunately repeated as true some wild rumors then currently accepted by the Europeans and Americans at Manila which of course were impossible of verification. I say "unfortunately" with some earnestness, because it does not appear on the face of his message that they were mere rumors. And, that they were wholly erroneous, in point of fact, has already been cleared up in previous chapters, wherein the real state of peace, order and tranquillity which prevailed throughout Luzon at that time has been, it is believed, put beyond all doubt. But what manna in the wilderness to the McKinley Administration, now that it was bent on taking the islands, was that Dewey message of October 14th, "The natives appear unable to govern"!

On October 17th, Mr. Day wires Mr. Hay that the Peace Commissioners feel the importance of preserving, so far as possible, the condition of things existing at the time of signing the protocol, to prevent any change in the status quo. He says:

Might not our government * * * take more active and positive measures than heretofore for preservation of order and protection of life and property in Philippine Islands?

How could we, when Aguinaldo and his people were in the saddle all over Luzon, had taken the status quo between their teeth and run away with it, and were prepared to fight if bidden to halt and dismount; and, which is more, were preserving order perfectly themselves?

On October 19th, Mr. Hay repeated by wire to Mr. Day a cablegram from General Otis which said: "Do not anticipate trouble with insurgents * * * Affairs progressing favorably."

General Otis was making a desperate effort to humor Mr. McKinley's "consent-of-the-governed" theory and programme. But it was a situation, not a theory, which confronted him.

The date of the high-water mark of the Paris peace negotiations is October 25th. On that day, Mr. Day wired Mr. Hay:

Differences of opinion among commissioners concerning Philippine Islands are set forth in statements transmitted (by cable also) herewith. On these we request early consideration and explicit instructions. Liable now to be confronted with this question in joint commission almost immediately.

Messrs. Davis, Frye, and Reid, sent a joint signed statement. They urged taking over the whole archipelago, saying that, as their instructions provided for the retention at least of Luzon, "we do not consider the question of remaining in the Philippine Islands as at all now properly before us." They also urged that as Spain governed and defended the islands from Manila, we became, with the destruction of her fleet and the surrender of her army, "as complete masters of the whole group as she had been, with nothing needed to complete the conquest save to proceed with the ample forces we had at hand to take unopposed possession." The vice of this proposition, from the strategic as well as the ethical point of view, is of course clear enough now.

Spain's government was already tottering in the Philippines when the Spanish-American war broke out. To be "as complete masters as she had been" was like becoming the recipient of a quit-claim deed. Also, ours was not a case of taking "unopposed possession." An adverse claimant, relying on immemorial prescription, was in full possession; all the tenants on the land had attorned to him, and he and they were ready to defend their claim against all comers with their lives. They reminded one of the recurrent small farmer whom some great timber or other corporation seeks to oust, patrolling his land lines rifle in hand, on the lookout for the corporation's agent and the sheriff with the dispossessory warrant.

Messrs. Davis, Frye, and Reid go on to say:

Military and naval witnesses agree that it would be practically as easy to hold and defend the whole as a part.

Hardly any one can fail to read with interest the following accurate and vivid picture which they give of the physical strategic unity of the Philippine Islands:

There is hardly a single island in the group from which you cannot shoot across to one or more of the others--scarcely another archipelago in the world in which the islands are crowded so closely together and so interdependent.

This explains also why the Filipino people are a people. Whenever the American people understand that, they will give them their independence, unless they get an idea that government of their people by their people for their people would be distasteful to them.

In the memorandum of their views telegraphed to Washington on October 25th, Messrs. Davis, Frye, and Reid also say:

Public opinion in Europe, including that of Rome, expects us to retain whole of Philippine Islands.

Archbishop Chapelle was in Paris at the time of these negotiations. He afterwards told the writer in Manila that he got that $20,000,000 put in the Treaty of Paris. The Church preferred that our title should be a title by purchase rather than a title by conquest, and Mr. McKinley was vigorously urging the latter. Between the legal effects of the two, there is a world of difference. The Church outgeneralled the President--checkmated him with a bishop. Look at that part of the treaty which affects church property:

Article VIII. The * * * cession * * * cannot in any respect impair the property or rights * * * of * * * ecclesiastical * * * bodies.

The Church of Rome, or at least some of the ecclesiastical bodies pertaining to it in the Philippines, owned the cream of the agricultural estates. By the treaty they have not lost a dollar. It might have been otherwise, had not Mr. McKinley's original claim of title by conquest been overcome at Paris.

Judge Day's memorandum of his own views, telegraphed on October 25th along with those of his colleagues, stated that he was unable to agree that we should peremptorily demand the entire Philippine group; that

In the spirit of our instructions, and bearing in mind the often declared disinterestedness of purpose and freedom from designs of conquest with which the war was undertaken, we should be consistent in demands in making peace * * * with due regard to our responsibility because of the conduct of our military and naval authorities in dealing with the insurgents.

Again, he says:

We cannot leave the insurgents either to form a government [he of course did not know what a complete government they had already formed] or to battle against a foe which * * * might readily overcome them.

He also was of course unaware how thoroughly anxious the Spaniards then in the Philippines were to get away, and how completely they were at the mercy of the new Philippine Republic and its forces. "On all hands" says Judge Day, "it is agreed that the inhabitants of the islands are unfit for self-government." Of course we knew absolutely nothing worth mentioning about the Filipinos at that time. Judge Day then proposes, for the reasons indicated, to accept Luzon and some adjacent islands, as being of "strategic advantage," and to leave Spain the rest, with a "treaty stipulation for non-alienation without the consent of the United States." It seems to me that Judge Day's scheme was the least desirable of all.

Senator Gray's memorandum of the same date is a red-hot argument against taking over any part of the archipelago. He begins thus:

The undersigned cannot agree that it is wise to take Philippine Islands in whole or in part. To do so would be to reverse accepted continental policy of the country, declared and acted upon through our history. * * * It will make necessary * * * immense sums for fortifications and harbors * * * Climate and social conditions demoralizing to character of American youth * * *. On whole, instead of indemnity, injury * * *. Cannot agree that any obligation incurred to insurgents * * *. If we had captured Cadiz and Carlists had helped us, would not be our duty to stay by them at the conclusion of war * * *. No place for * * * government of subject people in American system * * *. Even conceding all benefits claimed for annexation, we thereby abandon * * * the moral grandeur and strength to be gained by keeping our word to nations of the world * * * for doubtful material advantages and shameful stepping down from high moral position boastfully assumed. * * * Now that we have achieved all and more than our object, let us simply keep our word * * *. Above all let us not make a mockery of the [President's] instructions, where, after stating that we took up arms only in obedience to the dictates of humanity * * * and that we had no designs of aggrandizement and no ambition for conquest, the President * * * eloquently says: "It is my earnest wish that the United States in making peace should follow the same high rule of conduct which guided it in facing war."

The next day, October 26th, came this laconic answer:

The cession must be of the whole archipelago or none. The latter is wholly inadmissible and the former must be required.

Probably the one thing about the Paris Peace negotiations that is sure to interest the average American most at this late date is the matter of how we came to pay that twenty millions. It was this way. On October 27th, the Commission wired Washington:

Last night Spanish ambassador called upon Mr. Reid.

It seems they talked long and earnestly far into the night, trying to find a way which would prevent the conference from resulting in sudden disruption, and consequent resumption of the war. Mr. Reid made plain the inflexible determination of the American people not to assume the Cuban debt. The Ambassador said: "Montero Rios [146] could not return to Madrid now if known to have accepted entire Cuban indebtedness," and asked delay to see "if some concessions elsewhere might not be found which would save Spanish Commissioners from utter repudiation at home." There is no doubt that the talk we are now considering was a "heart-to-heart" affair, probably quite informal. Yet it is one of the most important talks that have occurred between any two men in this world in the last fifty years. Mr. Reid finally threw out a hint to the effect that as the preponderance of American public sentiment seemed rather inclined to retain the Philippines, "It was possible," he said, "but not probable that out of these conditions the Spanish Commissioners might find something either in territory or debt [147] which might seem to their people at least like a concession.!" [148]

It was the leaven of this hint that leavened the whole loaf. There was doubtless much informal parleying after that, but finally, the American Commissioners, having become satisfied that Spanish honor would not be offended by an offer having the substance, if not the form, of charity, and being very tired of Spain's sparring for wind in the hope of a European coalition against us should war be resumed, submitted the following proposal:

The Government of the United States is unable to modify the proposal heretofore made for the cession of the entire archipelago of the Philippine Islands, but the American Commissioners are authorized to offer to Spain, in case the cession should be agreed to, the sum of $20,000,000.

This alluring offer was accompanied with the stern announcement that

Upon the acceptance * * * of the proposals herein made * * * but not otherwise, it will be possible * * * to proceed to the consideration * * * of other matters.

Also, our Commissioners wired Washington:

If the Spanish Commissioners refuse our proposition * * * nothing remains except to close the negotiations.

This was very American and very final. Washington answered: "Your proposed action approved."

November 29th, Mr. Day wired Mr. Hay:

Spanish Commissioners at to-day's conference presented a definite and final acceptance of our last proposition.

And that is how that twenty millions found its way into the treaty--not forgetting the prayers and other contemporaneous activities of Archbishop Chapelle.

After the tremendous eight weeks' tension had relaxed, and before the final reduction to writing of all the details, we see this dear little telegram, from Secretary of State Hay, himself a writer of note, come bravely paddling into port, where it was cordially received by both sides, taken in out of the wet, and put under the shelter of the treaty:

Mr. Hay to Mr. Day: In renewing conventional arrangements do not lose sight of copyright agreement.

And here is the last act of the drama:

Mr. Day to Mr. Hay, Paris, December 10, 1898: Treaty signed at 8.50 this evening.