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.