The American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912

by James H. Blount

One of the causes contributory to the Cavite-Batangas-Laguna insurrection is stated in the report of the Governor-General for 1905 thus:

In the autumn of 1904 it became necessary to withdraw a number of the constabulary from these provinces to assist in suppressing disorder which had broken out in the province of Samar.[11]

Another of the contributory causes is thus stated:

There was at the time [the fall of 1904] also considerable activity among the small group of irreconcilables in Manila, who began agitating for immediate independence, doubtless because of the supposed effect it would have on the presidential election in the United States, in which the Philippines was a large topic of discussion. Evidently this was regarded as a favorable time for a demonstration by Felizardo, Montalon, De Vega, Oruga, Sakay [etc]. All these men had been officers of the Filipino army during the insurrection.

Consider the benevolent casuistry necessary to include these fellows, and the tremendous following they could get up, and did get up, in Cavite, “the home of insurrection,” and the adjacent provinces, in a certificate to “a condition of general and complete peace” alleged in the certificate to have prevailed for two years prior to March 28, 1907. To make a long story short, on January 31, 1905, a state of insurrection was declared to exist, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended in Cavite and Batangas, the regular army of the United States was ordered out, and reconcentration tactics resorted to, as provided by Section 6 of Act 781 of the Commission. This is the act already examined at length, intended to meet cases of impotency on the part of the insular government to protect life and property in any other way. Political timidity is conspicuously absent from the resolution of the Philippine Commission of January 31, 1905, formally recognizing a break in the peerless continuity of the “general and complete peace.” It is virilely frank, the presidential election being then safely over.[12] It concludes by authorizing the Governor-General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law, “the public safety requiring it.” Then follows a proclamation of the same date and tenor, by the Governor-General.

It appears from the case cited in the foot-note that in the spring of 1905, one, Felix Barcelon, filed in the proper court a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was one of the reconcentrados corralled and “detained and restrained of his liberty at the town of Batangas, in the province of Batangas,” by one of Colonel Baker’s constabulary minions down there. The writ was denied by the lower court. In one part of the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case it is stated (p. 116) that the petitioner “has been detained for a long time * * * not for the commission of any crime and by due process of law, but apparently for the purpose of protecting him.” The opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. Justice Johnson, very properly held that the detention was lawful under the war power, basing its decision on the authority conferred on the Governor-General of the Philippines by the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, section 5 of which expressly authorizes the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion the public safety may require it.” A long legal battle was fought, the court holding that the Executive Department of the Government is the one in which is vested the exclusive right to say when “a state of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion” exists, and that when it so formally declares, that settles the fact that it does exist. At page 98 of the volume above cited[13] the court held, as to the above mentioned resolution of the Philippine Commission and the above mentioned executive order declaring a state of insurrection in Cavite and Batangas:

The conclusion set forth in the said resolution and the said executive order, as to the fact that there existed in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas open insurrection against the constituted authorities, was a conclusion entirely within the discretion of the legislative and executive branches of the Government, after an investigation of the facts.

Yet two years later the same “constituted authorities” certified to the President of the United States, in effect, as we shall see, that no open insurrection against the constituted authorities had occurred during the preceding two years. They do not in their certificate ignore Cavite and Batangas. They mention them by name, with a lot of whereases, explaining that after all they really believe that the majority of the people in the provinces aforesaid were not in sympathy with the uprising. However, after they get through with their whereases they face the music squarely, and certify to “the condition of general and complete peace.” Of the “nigger in the woodpile” more anon.

Governor Wright was not a party to the certificate of 1907. He left the Islands on leave November 4, 1905. A speech made by him prior to his departure, as published in a Manila paper, indicates an expectation to return. He never did. In 1906 he was demoted to be Ambassador to Japan, a place of far less dignity, and far less salary, which he resigned after a year or so. Vice-Governor Ide acted as Governor-General until April 2, 1906, on which date he was formally inaugurated as Governor-General.

Just why Governor Wright did not go back to the Philippines as Governor, after his visit to the United States in 1905–6, does not appear. It would seem almost certain that if Secretary of War Taft had wanted President Roosevelt to send him back, he would have gone. Mr. Taft never did frankly tell the Filipinos until 1907 that they might just as well shut up talking about any independence that anybody living might hope to see. Governor Wright began to talk that way soon after Mr. Taft left the Islands. Possibly Governor Wright undeceived them too soon, and thereby made the Philippines more of a troublesome issue in the presidential campaign of 1904. President Roosevelt recognized the sterling worth of the man, by inviting him to succeed Mr. Taft as Secretary of War in 1908. But President Taft did not invite him to continue in that capacity after March 4, 1909. Gossip has it that when the incoming President Taft’s letter to the outgoing President Roosevelt’s last Secretary of War, Governor Wright, was handed to the addressee, and its conventional “hope to be able to avail myself of your services later in some other capacity” was read by him, the outgoing official quietly remarked: “Well, that is a little more round-about than the one Jimmie Garfield[14] got, but it’s a dismissal just the same.”