[7] Dayat, praise; the future passive is conveyed by ipapag. [↑]
[8] From anchi, adverb, here. [↑]
[10] From uara, forgiveness. [↑]
[11] From auai, to quarrel. [↑]
[12] Mr. John Crawfurds’s Dissertation in his Malayan Grammar. [↑]
CHAPTER XIV.
NATIVE PRODUCE.
The Leyes de Indias emphatically recognize the wrongs and injuries of which the Indians are constantly the victims, and seek to furnish remedies against them: they annul dishonest contracts—they order the authorities rigorously to punish acts of oppression—they declare that the transactions of the Spanish settlers have frequently been “the ruin of the Indians”—they point out the mischiefs produced by the avarice in some cases, and inaction in others, of the mestizos, who are commonly the go-betweens in bargains of colonists with natives. The local ordenanzas, which are numerous and elaborate, have for their object to assure to the Indian the fruits of his labours—to protect him against his own imprudence and the usurious exactions of those to whom he applies in his difficulties; they provide against the usurpation of his lands, declare the sovereign the rightful owner of property which there are no heirs to claim, and insist that everywhere the Indian shall draw from the soil he cultivates the means of comfortable subsistence: the accumulation of properties acquired from the Indians by ecclesiastical bodies is prohibited, notwithstanding which prohibition enormous estates are held by the monkish fraternities. There are also arrangements for setting apart “common lands” for general use, independently of private estates. Many of the provisions are of so vague a character as to insure their non-observance, and others so particular and special in their requirements as to make their enforcement impossible. The 71st article, for example, compels the Indians “to plant useful trees, suited to the soil”—to sow wheat, rice, maize, vegetables, cotton, pepper, &c., in proper localities—to maintain “every species of appropriate cattle”—to have “fruits growing in their gardens and orchards round their houses”—to keep “at least twelve hens and one cock” (a very superfluous piece of legislation), and one “female sucking pig;” they must be encouraged to manufacture cloths and cordage; and failing in these duties for the space of two years, they are to lose their lands, which, by public proclamation, shall be appropriated to others. There is, in fact, no absolute territorial right of property among the Indians. It can always be seized and reappropriated by the Spanish authorities. Lands are held on condition that they are cultivated. There are lands possessed by Spaniards and by corporations of the clergy principally, which pay a nominal rental to the crown, but the rental is so small as to be of no account. There is no difficulty in obtaining gratuitous concessions of territorial surface on the sole obligation of bringing it into cultivation. Long usage and long possession have no doubt created supposed rights, which are able to maintain themselves even against competing private claims or the obvious requirements of public utility. Questions arise as to what is meant by “cultivation,” and the country is full of controversies and lawsuits, of which land is generally the subject-matter. The larger proprietors constantly speak of the difficulty of obtaining continuous labour—of the necessity of perpetual advances to the peasant—of the robbery of the ripe harvests when raised. Hence they are accustomed to underlet their lands to petty cultivators, who bring small and unsatisfactory returns to the owners and to the market. They complain of the jealousy and ill-will of the Indians, their intrigues and open resistance to foreign settlers, and of the too indulgent character of the “Law of the Indies.” It appears to me that there is abundant field for advantageous agricultural experiments, not perhaps so much in the immediate vicinity of large and populous places, as on the vast tracts of uncared-for territory, which demand nothing but attention and capital, perseverance and knowledge, to render a prodigal return. No doubt the agriculturist should have possession absolutely and irrevocably secured to him. Once installed by the government he must be protected against all molestation of his title. I do not believe in the invincible inertness of the Indians when they are properly encouraged. I heard of a native in one of the most distant villages I visited in Pinay, who had been recommended by a friar to take to sugar-growing. He did so, and obtained five hundred dollars for the produce which he, for the first time, took down to Iloilo. He will get a thousand the second year; and others were following his example. A little additional labour produces so much that the smallest impulse gives great results, especially where employed over a vast extent. But Indian indolence is not only prejudicial from the little assistance it offers to agricultural activity in preparing, sowing, watching and gathering the harvest; it is unable to furnish any of those greater appliances which must be considered rather of public than of private concern. Hence the absence of facilities for irrigation, the imperfect state of the river navigation, the rarity of canals, the badness of the roads in so many localities. The seasons bring their floods, and the mountain torrents create their gullies; but the water escapes into the sea, and the labourer brings his produce, as best he may, amidst the rocks and sand and mud which the cataracts have left behind them. I have seen beasts of burden struggling in vain to extricate themselves, with their loads, from the gulf into which they had fallen, and in which they were finally abandoned by their conductors. I have been carried to populous places in palanquins, whose bearers, sometimes sixteen in number, were up to their thighs amidst mire, slough, tangled roots, loose stones and fixed boulders. De Mas says that the labourer absorbs three-fifths of the gross produce, leaving two-fifths to the proprietor and capitalist; but the conditions of labour are so very various that it is difficult to reach any general conclusion, beyond the undoubted fact that neither capitalist nor labourer receives anything like the amount of profit which, under a better system, would be enjoyed by both; that the cost is far greater, and the returns far smaller, than they should be; and that the common prosperity suffers from the position of each. Whatever may be said of the enervating effects of climate and the want of motive to give activity to industry, it is probable that all nations, even the most industrious and the most opulent, have passed through their stages of indolence and inactivity. China affords an example that climate alone is no insuperable barrier to energetic exertions in all departments of the field of production, and that the possession of much is no necessary check upon the desire of obtaining and enjoying more. The value of lands is very various. De Mas says that the quiñon (of 1,000 square fathoms), in Pangasinan, sells for from 220 to 250 dollars; in the Laguna, 250 to 300; in Ilocos Sur, 300; in the neighbourhood of Manila, 1,000. He seems to consider sugar as, on the whole, the most profitable investment. He gives several tables of the cost and charges of sundry tropical productions, but the many elements of uncertainty, the cost of raising, the vicissitudes of climate, the attacks of insects, the fluctuations in the amount and value of accessible labour, and all the ebbs and flows of supply and demand, make all calculations only approximative. His apuntes, however, are well worth consulting by those interested in detailed inquiry. He gives as a result of rice cultivation a minimum profit of 24 per cent., a maximum profit of 76 per cent. per annum. This would seem sufficiently inviting, especially as the Spaniards are reported to be fonder of agriculture than of any other pursuit, and fonder of being owners of lands than of any other property, according to their old refrain:—