and held further that:—

it is nevertheless true that this child, who had been thrice sold, was detained just as effectively in Caoayan as if chained to a post in the house of the man who bought her, and was required by him to perform menial labour without compensation. It would have been utterly impossible for her to escape and to make her way back through Isabela and Nueva Vizcaya to her own people, no matter how strenuously she might have endeavoured to do so.

It is extremely difficult to prove forcible detention in connection with most cases of slavery in these islands. Negrito slaves are usually purchased when mere babes and later have no recollection of their parents or of their former wild life in the hills. Babes or very young children bring a better price than do older children, for the reason that they are less likely to run away.

Adult Negritos, and adult members of other tribes held in slavery, have, as a rule, been made to feel the heavy hand of the oppressor and are so afraid of their lives that they will not testify. Only under very exceptional circumstances will they admit that they are being held against their will, although they are quick to make their escape when a favourable opportunity presents itself.

The difficulty involved in protecting these simple people is illustrated by the following case which came to my personal attention:—

An eleven-year-old Bukidnon girl was carried away from northern Mindanao to Bohol by a Filipino school-teacher who had been discharged from the insular service. Her parents gave every indication of bitter grief and begged to have their daughter restored to them. This was finally accomplished, to their great joy, as a result of my efforts. The kidnapper was ultimately brought into court, but before the case came up for trial the parents had been subjected to such “influence” that when called to the witness-stand they swore that the kidnapper had taken their daughter with their full knowledge and consent.

In order to be reasonably effective, laws in these islands must be so framed as to make it possible to protect people too ignorant, or too timid, to protect themselves.

Returning now to the Supreme Court decision, the court also held that:—

But it further held that:—

More important still, the court held that:—

and also that:—

In view of the facts above cited the necessity for legislation seemed obvious.

The commission in its capacity as sole legislative body for the territory inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes might have passed an act prohibiting and penalizing slavery, involuntary servitude and peonage in that territory; but such an act unless supplemented by a similar one applicable to the neighbouring Filipino territory where most of the slaves are actually held would obviously have been ineffective, while the desirability of having uniform legislation throughout the Philippines was evident.

The Philippine Assembly was about to meet for the first time. The work of drafting a proper bill was duly provided for and I am sure that no member of the commission for a moment entertained the belief that there would be any difficulty in securing the concurrence of the assembly in the passage of a reasonable act prohibiting and penalizing slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage and the sale and purchase of human beings. The gentleman charged with drafting the bill encountered difficulty in so framing it that it would accomplish the desired end without unduly interfering with the rights of parents over their children. Long delay ensued.

I myself finally drafted a bill entitled: “An Act prohibiting slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage, or the sale of human beings in the Philippine Islands,” and introduced it in the commission.

It was passed, in slightly amended form, on April 29, 1909, and sent to the Philippine assembly, where it was introduced on May 6, 1909. On May 7 it was referred to the Committee on Revision of Laws, and on May 17 it was returned by that committee with the following report:—

This report, if adopted, would have emasculated the bill by striking out the minimum penalties, but it was not adopted. On May 19 the assembly laid the bill on the table without discussion.

So began a long struggle to secure the coöperation of the assembly in the enactment of legislation on this important subject.

I did not feel that the assembly ought to be allowed to make a joke of the provision of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, that “Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in said islands,” and inserted a frank statement of the case in my annual report. During my absence it was cut out by the governor-general acting on the cabled suggestion of General, then Colonel, McIntyre, speaking for the secretary of war. The Secretary, it is understood, based his decision on the statement of alleged facts and the argument in the above-mentioned memorandum prepared by General McIntyre, and signed by General Edwards, then chief of the bureau of insular affairs. Various of these statements of alleged facts were incorrect, and much of the argument was fallacious, but the toute ensemble was plausible, and likely to mislead any one not thoroughly familiar with local conditions in the Philippines. I did not see this communication until three years later, and so had no opportunity seasonably to discuss it, or to present my side of the case.

On learning that all reference to slavery had been cut out of my report, I sent the following memorandum to the governor-general:—

The following year I introduced in the commission the bill which the assembly had rejected. Action upon it was postponed, pending the receipt of information which was requested from the assembly as to the reason for the failure of that body to pass it the preceding year. Shortly after this was obtained in the form of the above-quoted extract from the minutes of that body I was called to the United States and no further action was taken in the matter at that time, although the Governor-General in his message to the Legislature had included the following recommendation:—

I had also again attempted to discuss this important matter in my annual report.

I myself reached Washington at about the time this document arrived there, but that part of it dealing with slavery and peonage was cut out without either consulting me or giving me a hearing. I was advised by General McIntyre that the secretary had disapproved it.

In writing to me under date of January 11, 1913, Mr. Dickinson said:—

I am quite prepared to believe that the matter was never allowed to come to his personal attention!

On January 31, 1911, I again introduced this bill in the commission. It was amended in minor details and passed on that date and was duly forwarded to the assembly. There it was introduced on February 2 and on February 3 was laid on the table. I here give the full record. It is significant as showing the lack of interest displayed by the assembly in this important subject.

In my report as secretary of the interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1911, I again took up this subject. After this report had been submitted to the commission I myself cut out all mention of slavery at the request of Governor-General Forbes, who urged that we make a last effort to get the assembly to act before appealing to Congress.

In spite of the desirability of having uniform legislation on such a matter as this in adjacent provinces, the commission felt that it could no longer with propriety delay action for the territory under its exclusive jurisdiction, and on August 7, 1911, passed the bill for Agusan, Nueva Vizcaya and the Mountain Province.

The same act was again passed by the commission for the territory under the jurisdiction of the legislature, when that body reconvened. The assembly referred it to committee on October 27, 1911, and tabled it without discussion on February 1, 1912.

In my annual report for 1912 I included the following recommendation:—

This time I sent the copy for the report to the printer without awaiting further possible requests or orders to remain silent, for I was thoroughly convinced that it was useless to expect action from the assembly and that nothing remained but to appeal to congress to pass suppletory legislation making effective the provision of the Act of July 1, 1902, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude in the Philippine Islands.

At the next session of the legislature the commission again passed the bill. The assembly referred it to committee on October 26, and tabled it without discussion on January 8, 1913.

From the above record it will be plain that, beginning in 1909, the commission passed laws prohibiting and penalizing slavery and peonage annually during four successive years, and that the assembly tabled each of the four measures without deigning to give any of them one moment’s discussion. Much less have they ever asked for any information as to the necessity for such legislation.

While no member of the assembly had ever made any official statement on the subject, the Filipino press had on various occasions denounced me as a liar or an ignoramus, and an enemy of “the Filipino people,” for saying that slavery existed.

In preparation for what I deemed to be a probable request from Congress for a detailed statement of facts, I now proceeded to get together the information on file in government offices and courts, called upon various officers of the government for data in their possession which had never been made of record, and initiated new investigations, using for this purpose the police of Manila, the Philippine constabulary and various other agencies. Drawing on the abundant material thus obtained, I began the preparation of a report to the commission, recommending that the necessity for legislation be called to the attention of Congress, and supplying abundant data relative to the existence of slavery and peonage in the Philippines.

Before this report was completed there occurred a most unexpected event.

Dr. W. O. Stillman, President of the American Humane Association, had written me months before asking about the power of the Philippine Legislature to enact humane legislation, and further inquiring what laws of this sort, if any, had been enacted. In my reply I had called his attention to the act of the commission prohibiting slavery and peonage in certain provinces, and to the fact that the attitude of the assembly had prevented the enactment of similar prohibitive legislation for the remaining territory. My letter, which furnished no supporting data, was eventually published by this gentleman and was read in the United States Senate by Senator Borah. On May 1, 1913, the senate passed the following resolution:—

The reply addressed by the secretary of war to the president of the Senate on May 6, 1913, contains the following statement:—

This was a most peculiar statement. The passage cut out of my 1909 report was certainly on file there, and it explicitly stated that slavery existed in the Islands.

The similar passage from my 1910 report should have been on file there, and last but not least, when finally, after the lapse of years, I saw the so-called “Edwards” memorandum, in reality written by General McIntyre, on which the Secretary of War had based his action in ordering all reference to slavery cut out of my 1910 report, I had made a full reply to it, containing a specific statement that slavery and the sale of human beings were common in certain parts of the islands and citing certain specific cases. I had specially requested that this communication be filed in the bureau of insular affairs, and General McIntyre, the chief of that bureau, who acknowledged its receipt, could hardly have forgotten its existence.

The war department reported on this matter without seeking any information from Manila. I can only conclude that Secretary Garrison was deceived by some irresponsible subordinate.

As promptly as practicable I completed my report and sent it to the commission, which read and considered it on May 17, 1913, immediately passing the following resolution:—

I was subsequently requested by the governor-general to address the report to him rather than to the commission, to the end that the Filipino members of that body might be spared the embarrassment which would otherwise result from the necessity of voting either for its acceptance or for its rejection, and I very willingly made the requested change.

The printing of the report was delayed until July 19, 1913, and I brought it up to that date, as evidence continued to pour in.

In this document I gave specific cases of chattel slavery in the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela, Tarlac, Zambales, Pampanga, Batangas, Palawan, Agusan, Ambos Camarines, the Moro province, the Mountain province and Manila itself, describing quite fully the conditions under which Ilongots, Ifugaos, Negritos, Tagbanuas, Manobos, Mandayas, Moros and Filipinos are bought, sold and held as chattel slaves.

I will here only briefly summarize them.

The Negritos are savages of low mentality, and most of them lead a nomadic or semi-nomadic life. They constantly get the worst of it in the struggle for existence and to-day are found only on the islands of Mindanao, Palawan, Tablas, Negros, Panay and Luzón, where for the most part they inhabit very remote and inaccessible mountain regions. Owing to their stupidity and their extreme timidity it is comparatively easy to hold them in slavery, and they are probably thus victimized more than are the people of any other tribe. They are constantly warring with each other in the more remote of the mountain regions which they inhabit. It would be going too far to say that their moral sense has been blunted. It is probably nearer the truth to say that they never had any. It is therefore a simple matter for Filipino slave dealers to arrange with Negritos for the purchase of their fellow-tribesmen. The latter then proceed to obtain captives by raiding some hostile group of their own people, killing ruthlessly if occasion arises.

They are more ready than are the people of any other Philippine tribe to sell their children or other dependent relatives, and do this not infrequently when pressed by hunger, a condition apt to arise because of their utter improvidence. Unfortunately, the matter does not end here. It is by no means unknown for Filipinos to join in their slave-hunting raids, or even to organize raids of their own, killing Negrito parents in order to get possession of their children. I submit the following case to illustrate this latter procedure:—

The subsequent fate of these Negrito children is made plain by the following letter:—

In this case one of the kidnappers was convicted of murder, but nothing could be done to him for selling the Negrito children nor could anything be done to Señor Ambrocio David for buying the children or for claiming that they were his property.

Like many primitive peoples, the Negritos are inordinately fond of strong alcoholic drinks. It is strictly against the law to give or sell any of the white man’s liquors to them, but this naturally does not restrain slave hunters, who frequently get adults deeply intoxicated and then trade with them for their children or kidnap the drunken persons themselves and drag them away. Negritos are held to-day in bondage, in considerable numbers, in provinces like Zambales, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan and Cagayan. While they are not displayed for sale in any market in Pampanga, they can be readily negotiated for in several different public markets of that province; and if none happen to be available at the moment, the would-be purchaser is assured that the supply in the mountains is inexhaustible and that his needs can soon be met.

The publication of my report has caused consternation among slave owners in many provinces. Some slaves have since escaped and little effort has been made to recapture them. Others have been voluntarily set free by their masters, but in Pampanga the trade still goes merrily on. Until recently Negritos have been peddled around the country adjacent to Manila like carabaos or horses, and it is but a short time since their purchasers have in some instances refused to give them up, stoutly asseverating that they were their property. Now, however, warned by experience, owners make no such claim, but advance various more or less ingenious explanations of the fact that they have Negritos in their possession and deny that they are slaves. Some of them insist that it is a Negrito custom to kill orphan children, and that they have taken orphans out of kindness in order to save their lives. Patient investigation has failed to show the existence of any such custom among the Negritos.

Perhaps the commonest procedure of all is to claim that Negrito slaves are “adopted children” or “members of the family.” The presumption against a Filipino’s taking into his family one of these little woolly-headed, black, dwarf savages is strong. In no single case have I been able to obtain evidence of real, legal adoption. The following document illustrates the procedure which seems invariably to have been followed:—

(Girl given the name of Juana de Jesus Vitug.)

A document of this sort imposes no legal obligation whatever on the owner of a slave, and makes no change in the status of the slave, but merely serves as a basis for the claim that he or she “is treated as a member of the family.”

This is a cheap and easy method of securing a slave, and the child thus “adopted” may be compelled to labour for a lifetime without compensation, or turned over for a consideration to be similarly “adopted” by some one else.

Other Filipinos who do not claim that their Negrito slaves are members of their families find complete justification for purchasing them in the allegation that they have taken them to Christianize, thus preventing their going to hell!

In the provinces of Agusan and Surigao the slave-taking raids of the Mandayas and Manobos are historic. In the more remote parts of these provinces they continue from time to time up to the present day. While one of them lies within the territory for which the commission has been able to legislate, what shall we say of those who contend that slavery does not exist in the Philippine Islands in the face of such occurrences as have taken place there? The same query holds for the sub-province of Ifugao in the Mountain Province and for Nueva Vizcaya. The Ifugaos have been especially victimized. The following kinds of servitude are recognized by them:—

Jim-bút. This is the name applied to real slaves. The Jim-bút becomes an article of commerce and often changes owners several times before reaching the country of the Ba-li-uon (Christians).

Nij-cóp. This is the name applied to children who have been really adopted under a formal contract made with their parents or nearest relatives in case the parents are dead. The Nij-cóp acquire certain property rights from their new parents-by-adoption.

Baj-ál. This is the name given to orphan children who have been formally taken in charge by some well-to-do Ifugao and who are unable to support themselves. The Baj-ál is a tentative Nij-cóp, for if he turns out to be bright and industrious, he may become a member of the family and acquire property rights.

Ta-gá-la. This is the name applied to servants who receive regular compensation.

It is a matter of common knowledge throughout the sub-province that there are living to-day in Isabela hundreds of Ifugaos who have been sold to Filipinos as slaves.

In Nueva Vizcaya it has been possible to deal with the more flagrant cases since the passage by the commission of the law above referred to, but the commission is powerless to pass a law effective in Isabela.

The holders of slaves now seek to evade the law by nominally hiring them at a monthly salary which is not paid. The promulgation of Act No. 2071 prohibiting and penalizing slavery enabled Lieutenant-Governor Jeff D. Gallman of Ifugao to liberate some forty boys and girls held by Filipinos in Nueva Vizcaya. In no single case, however, could it be proved that the child had been sold. The persons who held them testified in each instance that they were “hired servants.”

When they learned of the provisions of the above-mentioned act they were easily prevailed upon to pay “salaries” long overdue to their “servants” and the latter were allowed to return to their homes.

It was found that some of the persons originally sold into slavery in Nueva Vizcaya had run away from their masters and become vagabonds. Few really wanted to return to their parents, whose language in many cases they had almost forgotten.

I wish this were the worst, but the worst is yet to come. Not only do the Filipinos buy, sell and hold the wild people as slaves, but Filipino children have been kidnapped, or enticed from their homes, by other Filipinos, and sold as slaves to their own kind. Young girls have been sold outright to Chinese who purchased and kept them for immoral purposes. They have been sold to panderers and keepers of houses of prostitution and compelled to enter upon lives of shame. Filipino children and young women have been sold to Chinese who have taken them to China. God only knows what fate may have befallen them there. In such cases the victims disappear from these islands, never to return.

Some slaves are well treated. Others are half starved, brutally beaten, injured or even killed. The Manobos and Manadayas of Agusan and Surigao, and the Bagobos of the Moro Province, have been accustomed to sacrifice slaves to appease their heathen deities. The Manobos on occasion even have their boys take lances and try the effect of different thrusts on slaves tied to trees or posts.

Those who desire long lists of specific cases of slavery will find them in my report. I think that I have here abundantly demonstrated the fact that genuine slavery exists in the Philippine Islands. It can never be successfully checked until there is a law of general application throughout the archipelago penalizing the sale, barter, or purchase of human beings. What reason has the Philippine Assembly for refusing to pass the necessary act?

Without hesitation I assert that, apart from false and foolish pride which makes the persons concerned unwilling to admit the fact of the existence of slavery, their chief reason for objecting to this law is that it would not only prohibit and penalize slavery, but would prohibit and penalize peonage, which is so common and widespread that it may properly be called general. Indeed, I have no hesitation in asserting that it prevails in every municipality in the Philippine Islands.

Slavery is a serious matter, but peonage is far more serious because of the very much larger number of persons involved. It lies at the root of the industrial system of the Philippines.

Much has been said relative to the probable attitude of large American landowners toward Filipino labourers. Thus far their attitude, and that of all other classes of Americans, has been infinitely better than has that of the wealthy Filipinos themselves. The truth is that peonage is repugnant to the average American. One of the complaints persistently made against us by the Filipinos is that we have raised the daily wage throughout the islands, and this is true. When I was there in the Spanish days, it was possible, in many regions, to obtain abundant labour at five cents per day with food, and ten cents with food was the general rule. Now the same class of labour costs at least twenty-five cents per day with food, and in some provinces it costs fifty cents or more. It must be frankly admitted that Americans are responsible for this sad condition of affairs! American landowners who desire to pay their employees regularly a living daily wage encounter difficulty in doing so, for the reason that the labourers have become accustomed to the old system, the evils of which they know, and are afraid of a new one, fearing that it may involve worse evils of which they know nothing.

Incidentally, Americans have learned that their labourers are worth more if well fed, and this is another grievance held against us in certain quarters.

With many of the Filipinos it is a different story.

The rich and powerful man, commonly known as a cacique, encourages the poor man to borrow money from him under such conditions that the debt can never be repaid, and holds the debtor, and frequently the members of his family as well, in debt servitude for life. One might fill a score of volumes with records of cases and I can here do no more than to select a few typical illustrations of the workings of this vicious system.

The Filipinos are born gamblers. Gambling is their besetting sin. The poor are usually glad to get the opportunity to borrow money, and will do this on almost any terms, if necessary, in order to continue to indulge in their pet vice. They are thoughtless about their ability to repay loans, and thus readily fall into the power of the cacique money-lenders, who thereafter use them as house servants or labourers, under conditions such as to render their escape from debt-servitude practically impossible.

Indeed, if they seek to escape, the caciques often threaten them with the law, or actually invoke it against them, while if they endeavour to homestead public land and thus better their condition, the caciques only too often cause opposition to be made to their claims and keep it up until they become discouraged.

The following facts have been furnished me by Hon. James A. Ostrand, judge of the court of land registration.

The net result in this case was that a boy was “mortgaged” for a ₱20 debt and after six years the debt had very largely increased, probably in part as a result of the carelessness of the boy.

In a letter to Judge Ostrand I had defined peonage as “the condition of a debtor held by his creditor in a form of qualified servitude to work out a debt.” Of its prevalence the judge says:—