[53] The new industrial (or income) taxes had, however, been inaugurated before he wrote. See his Progreso de Filipinas, pp. vii, 81–87, 93–94, on this subject; pp. 5–15, for extracts from a project of economic reforms in 1870 (which see, in the Biblioteca, no. 2041); pp. 9, 10, 28–34, 48–53, 56, 65–80, 81–89, arguments for a real-property tax; pp. 6–10, 100–124, 142–143, the tribute; pp. 133–143, miscellaneous taxes; pp. 142–143, local taxes proper. [↑]
[54] Dr. Schurman drew from Spanish official publications the budget of 1894–95 for his exposition of the former Philippine government (Report of Philippine Commission, 1900, i, pp. 79–81), and this has been considerably quoted, with the assumption that it represented the full cost of government, in recent comparisons with the American régime. Sawyer (in an appendix) gives the budget of 1896–97, with just a note showing that charges for collection and for local government made the actual collections for the poll-tax considerably larger than the insular budget showed. Foreman, in his 1899 and 1906 editions, only reproduces from his first edition a fragmentary statement of the 1888 budget, without showing that this was only partial and without developing the later changes and increases in taxes. Retana, in the Estadismo, apéndice H, under Rentas é impuestos del Estado, gives the general totals of the budgets of 1890 and 1893–94 (likewise net totals for the central government alone). See Sancianco y Goson for proposed budget for 1881–82. The insular budget was published annually at Madrid under the title Presupuestos generales de gastos é ingresos de las islas Filipinas. The budget was made up at Madrid for each fiscal year, and put into effect by a royal decree (after its receipt in Manila, some few months after the beginning of the fiscal year which it was to govern). Some changes or additions were allowed to be made by the governor-general in imperative circumstances; otherwise the effort was to regulate Philippine finances just the same as if the islands were a province of the centralized government of the Peninsula itself. The folio volume of Presupuestos published at Madrid, running to several hundred pages, are valuable for giving in minute detail the expected items of expenditures, down to the last petty employee on salary; but they can give, of course, only the estimate of the revenue expected under each item, and actual collections sometimes varied considerably from these figures. Above all, these Presupuestos bear out the general remark that the Spanish budget as published tends to conceal rather than to reveal the actual burden resting on the people. They are not budgets for the insular government alone, hence the budgets for the city of Manila and for the local governments (provinces and towns), published separately in some years at Manila, must be consulted to get total net collections for all branches of government. In addition, one must dig out for himself from the laws governing taxation, etc., and from the archives the data regarding fees for collection, notarial, legal and other fees accruing to private pockets, surcharges for special purposes, etc. [↑]
[55] The subject can not be thoroughly discussed here. For some data and references thereon, see contributions by the writer to the Political Science Quarterly, xxi, pp. 309–311, and xxii, pp. 124–125. Regarding ecclesiastical dues and exactions, the share of the ecclesiastical establishment in local revenues, etc., see, besides citations there given, M. H. del Pilar’s La soberanía monacal en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1888, and Manila, 1898).
The above contributions cited by Mr. LeRoy are his criticism of H. Parker Willis’s Our Philippine Problem (New York, 1905), and his Rejoinder to Mr. Willis’s Reply to that criticism (March, 1907). See also Mr. Willis’s remarks on this matter in his Reply (pp. 116–119), which have been fully met in Mr. LeRoy’s Rejoinder.—Eds. [↑]
[56] In confirmation of the first statement above, and for details regarding this debt, see Senate Document no. 62, 55th Congress, 3rd session, protocols 11, 12, 15, and 16; ibid., p. 412 (Greene’s memorandum); Senate Document no. 148, 56th Congress, 2nd session, for cablegrams between the President and the American peace commissioners from October 27, 1898, on, especially p. 44 (details of this loan); also Sastrón’s La insurrección en Filipinas (Madrid, 1901), pp. 284, 285. [↑]
[57] Special attention may be directed to Clifford Stevens Walton’s The Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America, including Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines (Washington, 1900). [↑]
[58] Pardo de Tavera’s Biblioteca, no. 1770. [↑]
[59] Data obtained from Justices Arellano and Torres cover very well the judicial organization of recent years. For earlier years, it is often in error, the Washington editor having tried to improve the manuscript with data drawn from various sources and presented without a real understanding of the legal, judicial, and administrative system of Spain and the Spanish colonies. [↑]
[60] See especially Bulletin no. 22 of the Bureau of Government Laboratories (Manila, 1905), for a catalogue of the new scientific library in Manila. [↑]
[61] It may be said, however, that the real foundations of that science are only now being laid in the Philippines. Most of the Spanish writings in this line are, speaking strictly from the scientific point of view, unreliable or, in some cases, worthless. Blumentritt, who has written most voluminously on this subject, was never in the Philippines, but drew largely from these Spanish sources, and he has confused the subject rather than shed light upon it. The German and French scientists who visited the islands were, in most instances, not primarily ethnologists, and have done but fragmentary work in this field. Needless to say, all these sources must be consulted, especially for the historical side of the subject; but the science of Philippine ethnology proper is still in its infancy. [↑]