The History of Sulu

by Najeeb M. Saleeby

Appendix XVII

Communication from the Supreme Government of the Philippines to the Secretary of State, relative to the treaty of Sir James Brooke with the Sultan of Sulu; August 16, 1849[66]

Office of the Captain-General and Governor of the Philippines.

To his Excellency, The Secretary of State and of the Office of Gobernación of the Kingdom, I have the honor to state the following, on this date, and under No. 499.

By the communications which I had the honor to send your Excellency from Zamboanga on the 23rd of June and 4th of July last, and that of the General second in command, No. 482, your Excellency must have been informed of the treaty which has been made in Jolo by the Englishman Sir James Brooke, of the answer of the Governor of Zamboanga to the latter and his negotiation with the Sultan and Datus to have the treaty left without effect, without obtaining the least satisfaction.

It will therefore be necessary that the question be settled between the two Cabinets, and I believe that Holland will take our part, as she has an illfeeling against England on account of the latter’s usurpations in Borneo, contrary to the spirit of the treaty of March 17, 1824, between the two countries, and must fear to see her rich possessions surrounded by those of so powerful a rival. The communications of her Majesty’s Consul in Singapore and his confidential correspondence with the Governor-General of Java, which he has forwarded to the Secretary of State, show that the Dutch Government wishes to maintain the most friendly relations with Spain. Although the English press in Singapore and Hong-Kong are still speaking of a Dutch expedition against Jolo, nothing has been done hitherto, and the favorable season for such an expedition has passed.

As the correspondence between Brooke and the Governor of Zamboanga will probably play an important part in the future correspondence with the British Government, I believe it is my duty to submit a few remarks in regard to the action taken by the said Governor. Notwithstanding that the objections, which he submitted to Brooke in regard to Article 7 of the treaty, were well founded, he ought not to have entered upon such a discussion, and much less to have particularized it in such a way: he ought to have protested against the treaty as a whole, and to have declared it null, as made without the consent of Spain, which holds not only a protectorate, but sovereignty or dominion over the territory. The second defect that I find in the same letter to Brooke, is his basing our right to the sovereignty over Sulu on the “free submission of the true natives of the Gimbahan race, who live in the interior of the island and are oppressed by the Sultan and the Datus.” Although there is some truth in that statement, and we might take advantage of this element in case of a war with the Sultan, I believe that it ought not to have been made under the present circumstances, as, on the same principle, we would invalidate the rights founded by us on the different treaties made by Spain with the Sultan and Datus of Sulu. The acknowledgment made by the latter of the sovereignty of Spain during over two centuries and more especially in the treaties of 1646, 1737 and 1836, by the first of which they pledge themselves to pay, as vassals, a tribute of three boatloads of rice, as recorded in the Archives, is a powerful argument in favor of our rights, which the Sultan has often confirmed in his communications to this Government and in the passports which he gives his subjects, on printed forms supplied by my predecessor;—I enclose herewith a copy of one of said passports.

The British, who doubtless do not feel very certain about their rights, try to excuse their conduct through the press, as they did when they occupied Labuan by force. The Singapore Free Press of the 6th of July published an article in which it alleges, for the purpose of proving that Sulu has always been considered as a sovereign independent power, that we said nothing to England when she accepted the cession of the island of Balambangan, between Borneo and Palawan. Even supposing the fact to be true, there would be nothing astonishing about it, considering the distress and the lack of means of the Government at that time, after the war which, but a few years before, it had miraculously carried on against the English who held Manila and many other places in the islands, and the work it had to do in order to put down interior rebellions, to reorganize the administration and to reëstablish normal conditions in the provinces which had been left uncontrolled during four years and had suffered the consequences of circumstances so unfortunate. Furthermore, the cession of Balambangan cannot be considered as an act of free will on the part of the Sulus, since they took advantage of the first opportunity to drive the British off the island, when they had hardly started to firmly establish their trading posts. The newspaper also mentions the doctrine of Walter, which says that an agreement similar to that existing between the Spanish and Sulu Governments does not entirely derogate the sovereignty of the protected state, which can make treaties and contract alliances, except when it has expressly renounced its right to do so; and that if the first state fails to protect the other, the treaty is invalidated; the author of the article adds that this is our case, since we allowed the Dutch to attack Sulu without interfering, or, as far as known, requiring a reparation or the assurance that such an attack would not be renewed.

With regard to the first point, the reference to Walter is correct, but Walter adds in the same paragraph that “the protected nation is bound forever by the treaty of protection, so that it can undertake no engagements which would be contrary to said treaty, that is to say, that would violate any of the express conditions of the protectorate, or be inconsistent with any treaty of the said class:” how then could Article 7 of the treaty made by Brooke be valid, when by said article the Sultan pledges himself to recognize the sovereignty of no power without the previous consent of her Britannic Majesty, and not to cede the smallest part of the territory of his dominions to any state, person or corporation, said Sultan having already recognized the sovereignty of Spain and the rights of the latter over the greater part of his territory, in which the island of Palawan, which was ceded to us in the last century by the kings of Bruney is included by mistake.