[43] The Statesman’s Yearbook and such general works of reference will merit consultation; but it should be remarked that, prior to 1898, encyclopedias, annuals, etc., commonly treated the Philippines rather cursorily and not always accurately, while, generally speaking, the Spanish colonies have had very inadequate consideration at the hands of English and American authors and editors. For the special subjects of military and naval organization, see Salinas y Angulo’s Legislación militar (Manila, 1879), and Rodriguez Trujillo’s Memoria sobre la Marina (Manila, 1887), both cited in the Bibliography. [↑]
[44] Published in La España Oriental, Manila, 1893, and La Política de España en Filipinas, 1893–94. See Pardo de Tavera’s Biblioteca, no. 1496; note also his no. 2702, under Tiscar. [↑]
[45] It is to be emphasized, however, that this abstract shows only the framework of that government, and that just as it stood (on paper) at the beginning of 1898, its author not having traced the development of that organism even for a few years back nor learned that some of the provisions he outlined were not really in practice. [↑]
[46] Grifol y Aliaga (vol. XLVI, p. 109, note 48) is very naïve, seeking to waive away the effect of the Maura law’s plain provisions in the same way as did some friar and other writers. In his decree providing regulations for carrying out the law, Blanco explained that the parish priests were to retain their inspection of the schools as regards the teaching of religion and morals. The municipal tribunals were expressly created as schoolboards—an institution of which Zamora (Las corporaciones religiosas) bitterly complains. In reality, however, this reform remained a dead letter in most villages, except in the provinces most advanced in the propaganda, where the Filipino local officials asserted their power of regulation (Bulakan, Batangas, Manila, etc.). (From a previous communication from Mr. LeRoy.)—Eds. [↑]
[47] Pedro A. Paterno’s Regimen municipal de las islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1893), reproducing Minister Maura’s decree in its original form, with notes, was therefore premature. Except in some of its comments, however, this work is at least not merely ridiculous, as are this author’s writings on an imaginary primitive religion and civilization of the Filipinos. Don Pedro has a lively imagination, too lively for politics and history, but capable of providing good entertainment when he exercises it as a dramatist. One finds him much more pleasing in this rôle than as a Filipino reform propagandist, though in the latter capacity he seems to have been taken very seriously by Doctor Schurman and Mr. Foreman, and by various Spanish officials before them, including, for a time, Governor-Generals Primo de Rivera and Augustín. [↑]
[48] Once more, the Manila press since 1898 merits attention here. The Filipino press has not been always fair in treating of the old régime, but both in the Filipino and the Spanish press of Manila since 1898 some things have been brought to light which were either suppressed for private gossip or not frankly discussed at the time of their conference. [↑]
[49] Notes from his Progreso de Filipinas: Lack of public improvements and defects of public services, especially education, pp. 26–34; defects in administration of justice and its expensiveness, pp. 134–136; lack of development of material resources, pp. 205–211, 253–254; restriction of opportunities for Filipino laborers, and the evils of caciquism, pp. 212–237. A study of caciquism (subjection of the masses) and its deep roots in Philippine social, economic, and political conditions may be found in J. A. LeRoy’s Philippine Life in Town and Country (New York, 1905), chap. vi; also the same in part by the same author in the Atlantic Monthly for March, 1905. [↑]
[50] Though unsupported evidence here given, particularly when obviously gossip or when coming from partisan witnesses, is to be accepted with caution. F. H. Sawyer’s reminiscences of the administrations of various governor-generals are subject to the same caution, except where the author plainly speaks from a personal knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, that such opinions on the highest officials of the islands could pass current even as gossip among Spaniards and foreigners in Manila is in itself alone very significant of the tone of public life in the islands. Note Sawyer also on the administration of justice, and Foreman on the “pickings” of officials in the provinces. [↑]
[51] Note especially Military Governor of the Philippine Islands on Civil Affairs (Report War Dept., 1900, i, part 10), pp. 8–13, 79 et seq. See also, for defects and corruption in the customs administration up to 1881, Sancianco y Goson, pp. 36–37, 125–131. [↑]
[52] Part of this money was spent in campaigns against the Moros, and perhaps for other purposes not covered by the budget of ordinary expenses. See La Política de España en Filipinas, v, no. 116, for an account of progress in this work up to 1895. The press of Manila has published during the past few years various articles on the funds collected by subscription in Spain and the Philippines for the relief of the sufferers from the earthquake in Manila in 1863. See particularly El Renacimiento, Manila, September 18, 1906, for a report on the subject by Attorney-General Araneta. It would there appear that nearly $450,000 were collected; by 1870, only some $30,000 had been distributed to the sufferers themselves; whether they received further shares at a later date does not appear, but $80,000 were loaned from this fund to the obras pías in 1880, and about $15,000 were used for cholera relief in 1888–89. Governor-General Ide instructed the attorney-general to demand the return of the $80,000 from the obras pías, and recommended that, when $50,000 of this fund had been recovered, distribution of it among those who suffered losses in 1863 should begin—almost a half-century later, and under another government! [↑]