Notes.
These notes are, as regards historical
matter, chiefly taken from Spanish
official documents drawn up as a
result of juridical proceedings
against certain
individuals accused
of treason.
Note 2. In that period of time in which the evil effects of freemasonry began to tell upon the public and private life of the government officials and upon the morals of the people in general, the Civil Governor of Manila, D. Justo Martin Lunas (1886), gave a ball to which the cream of Manila society was invited. Among the selections for the evening was an extravagant item, nothing more or less than ... a can-can! This in itself was enough; but what made the matter so much the worse was that the governor had invited the venerable Archbishop of Manila to the ball. The news of the innovation spread far and wide, and very soon the whole city was in a state of wild excitement. In the defense of public morals the Archbishop deemed it necessary to issue a pastoral letter condemning such spectacles.
Although not directed at that particular “school of scandal”, this pastoral was interpreted by all those concerned, as well as by the public in general, as a severe lesson for Sr. Lunas and those who had gathered in the government house to dance the can-can or to take pleasure therein. Hence Sr. Luna and his party considered themselves offended, and did not hesitate to take revenge when an opportunity occurred, upon the aged and infirm Archbishop who did all he had done, in defense of the morals of his flock.
From this event sprung the seed which gave rise, later on, to the famous, or rather infamous manifestation of ’88: an insensate campaign inspired against the Religious Orders by these offended ones and their followers (See note [30]).
The Civil Governor at that time was D. José Centeno y García an active propagator of freemasonry, holding the 33rd degree. He, together with Sr. Quiroja, fostered and godfathered the “manifestation”. In this semi-official insult to Archbishop Payo, an insult so ably analysed by Sr. Retana[1], we have one of the best examples that could be furnished of the methods adopted by the masonic enemies of the Catholic faith in this archipelago. This manifestation, fostered by a governor who drew down upon himself the righteous ire of all honorable men and women by reason of his protection of the houses of ill-fame in and about the city, was a truly masonic invention by which many, in fact some 98% of those who signed it, were grossly deceived. The following notes taken from the analysis of Sr. Retana, will give an idea of the real value of the “manifestation” and the part the people had therein. In the Suburb of Sta. Cruz there were 144 people who signed the document, that is to say there were 144 names. Of these no less than 56 were unknown, 3 were minors and 3 did not recognize their signatures; 52 were natives and 8 were Chinese half-castes. In Sampaloc: 61 signatures, all of which were of indians none of whom followed trades or professions which necessitated the use of brain power. In Malate: 38 signatures, 31 of indians, only 15 of whom understood Spanish. In Binondo: 41, 31 of whom were indians; five minors. In Sta. Ana, out of 104, the number of minors was 14, and 50 did not understand Spanish; 66 were indians. In Caloocan: 80 signatures of which 55 were indians who did not understand Spanish; 38 were laborers, 7 were minors. In Navotas: 140 signatures; 49 laborers, and 49 fishermen; 127 did not understand Spanish. In Mariquina: 68, 38 of whom were laborers, 51 did not understand Spanish. In San Fernando de Dilao (Paco): 35; 6 minors and all indians. In San Mateo, 50 signatures; 39 laborers, 45 indians, 41 of whom did not understand Spanish. In San Miguel 49; and here comes the crowning piece of the magnificent work, for of these 49 no fewer than 16 had died! yes died previous to the drawing up of the document and therefore could not possibly have signed it; moreover 7 did not recognize their signatures, and all were indians.
In recapitulation; there were 810 signatures; of these 85 did not declare on examination, 56 were unknown, 39 were minors, 22 did not recognize their signatures and 16 had died previous to the drawing up of the document (Feb. 20th 1888). This brings the 810 down to 592. Of these 592 signatures 208 were of laborers, 50 of fishermen, 31 of carpenters, 7 washermen and 5 barbers: a total of 301 persons whose occupations called for no particular amount of education, and whose interest and concern in such a movement as this may be judged from their social standing. Deducting these 301 from the remaining 592 we have 291 left for further analysis. Of these 25 were of tailors, 4 singers (!) and 3 school masters; 58 escribientes whose occupation it is to make clean copies of documents and other manuscript, the most that can be said of the majority of them being that they can write well, not an uncommon thing anyhow for a filipino; 11 of musicians, men who lead the life of crickets, enjoying hunger by day and noise by night; 9 type-setters, men who after having set a dozen columns of material could not tell you anything of the subject they were composing, in other words, men who like the escribientes reproduce mechanically without knowing what they are reproducing; this gives us 107 of another grade leaving 184 to be divided among the many odds and ends of occupations followed by the native to earn his “fish and rice”. No less than 384 of the number did not understand Spanish and 13 could not write. In the matter of races: ONE was a Spaniard, Enrique Rodriguez de los Palacios who called himself a merchant and was domiciled in Binondo. Upon investigation it turned out that he also had been fooled and that he had signed the protest because he had been told that other Spaniards had also signed it; as to its contents he affirmed that he knew nothing. One was a Spanish mestizo, 66 were Chinese half-castes and 524 were indians. So much for the famous manifestation which resulted in giving a most decisive blow to the moral and social standing of those who prepared and those who signed it. Those concerned therein learned the bitter lesson that “they who dig pits for their neighbors are apt to fall therein themselves.”
The common opinion has always been that the document in question was drawn up by Doroteo Cortés (see note 11) who had on several occasions been under police vigilance; had been expelled from Navotas and compelled to reside within the walled city, later on pardoned, but still kept under police surveillance. But however that may be, the document was infamous in the extreme, and was the precursor of the modern campaign against the Religious Orders. From that time to this present, this campaign has continued to spread, and is still being fostered by the Federal Party.