“While practising law in the Province of Pangasinán, during the years 1905 to 1909, hardly a week passed but what cases of involuntary servitude, as defined in the within communication, came under my observation.”
He also calls attention to the fact that interference with the system does not increase one’s popularity:—
“Interference by third parties in cases of involuntary servitude is not looked upon with favour, and is generally considered highly reprehensible. I remember, for instance, a case where Mr. Pedro Sison [not the member of the Legislature], then a prominent resident of Lingayen, was, as he himself regarded it, made the victim of unwarranted interference. A woman bought a small parcel of land from Mr. Sison, agreeing to work out the purchase price, forty pesos. She worked with Mr. Sison for six years, at the end of which period the debt had increased to over sixty pesos, according to Mr. Sison’s accounts. In the meantime the woman became a Protestant, and Rev. E. S. Lyons, the Methodist missionary in Pangasinán, advised her to leave Mr. Sison’s service. Upon her doing so Mr. Sison became very indignant not only at her, but also at Mr. Lyons, and for some time thought seriously of having the latter criminally prosecuted. He appeared to be very much surprised when he found that there was no penal provision covering Mr. Lyons’s action. Mr. Sison was otherwise a very estimable and good-natured man, but he never until his dying day, which occurred a couple of years afterwards, got over his bitter resentment toward Mr. Lyons.”
Judge Ostrand summarizes the results of his observations as follows:—
“Nearly all the involuntary servitude cases of which I have any knowledge have arisen from the practice of mortgaging half-grown children. The sum advanced is usually some twenty or thirty pesos. As the money seldom draws interest at a lower rate than ten per cent a month, and the creditor furnishes the child food and such clothing as it may need, its services are ordinarily not considered worth more than the amount of the interest, and the debt instead of being reduced usually increases as the years pass. I venture to say that among the Filipinos in some sections of the Islands the majority of house servants are obtained and employed in this manner.”
It would indeed seem that with interest at the rate of 120 per cent per year and the creditor in a position to fix his own price for food, clothing and other necessaries furnished his debtors while they were trying to work out their debts, they would not be likely to succeed in doing so!
In this connection I call attention to the fact that in the course of the discussion recently caused by requests for the resignation of certain public officials who had been loaning money at usurious rates of interests, several of the native papers took the attitude that 18 per cent per year was a very moderate rate of interest.
If the unfortunate peon finally rebels, the rich cacique often invokes the law against him by having him prosecuted on some false criminal charge.
In this connection the following letter is of interest:—
“Philippine Constabulary,
“Office of the Senior Inspector,
“Pampanga, San
Fernando, September 26, 1912.
“The Superintendent, Information Division, P.
C.,
“Manila, P. I.
“(Thru’ Adjutant, District of Central Luzón.)
“Sir: Reference to the prosecution of Maria Guzman before the Justice of the Peace of Apalit for ‘Infraction of Law 2098’ (your file No. 8634–75) I have the honour to attach copy of decision in the case, and remarks:—
“About three (3) years ago Simeon de los Reyes, by and with the consent of his wife Maria Guzman, borrowed and signed receipt for fifty pesos (₱50) to Maria Santos of Apalit, contracting that his wife work out the debt moulding earthen jars—that for every hundred jars made Maria Guzman received ₱1, 25 centavos of which was to go on the debt. The woman states she could make about fifty jars per week, so that her actual wages were 50 centavos per week, or $.005 per jar. This without board, as the woman states that any money she got for food was charged on original debt.
“By the first part of this year the debt had ‘decreased’ to ₱70, when another receipt for that amount was signed by the husband, de los Reyes, and the old receipt for ₱50 destroyed. In the month of August ultimo the Santos woman refused to advance Maria Guzman more money, so Maria Guzman left and joined her husband, who was working in Manila. The debt at time of trial amounted to ₱79 and a fraction.
“Warrants of this nature are being continually sent from Pampanga, either by messenger or mail, direct to the Superintendent Information Division, without passing through my hands. The reason is evident.
“It is respectfully requested that in the future all warrants reaching your office in this way be referred back to me before execution.
“Very respectfully,
(Signed) “L. T.
Rohrer,
“Senior Inspector.”
This woman, if she succeeded in making fifty earthen jars per week, received wages amounting to twenty-five cents against which her creditor charged her food and doubtless also her clothing. In other words, she was in effect charged for the privilege of making fifty jars per week for her master. The interest on her debt was meanwhile piling up while the principal steadily increased, and when she grew weary of her hopeless task and ran away, her taskmaster prosecuted her.
The following letter presents a typical case of peonage:
“Rosales,
“March 26, 1912.
“Chief of the Secret Service Dept., Manila:
“Dear Sir: On behalf of Garegorio Almario a young girl residing at my house I write to ask you if you cannot have this matter attended to.
“Six years ago a man named Tomas Almario, living at present in Rosales, borrowed some money (twenty pesos only). This man was unable to repay this money so he sold this girl named Inocencia Almario to a Mr. Galban. I think he is the President of Bautista. Her sister has been to Bautista to take this girl away but she has been rebuked by these people in my presence. They state she owes ₱60 the extra ₱40 being interest on the ₱20 borrowed 6 years ago. They have got this girl and another girl working as slaves and to-day I heard that the girl escaped in a carromatta but they sent an automobile after her and took her into Bautista beating her all the way. In the interest of justice I hope you will have this girl released and hand her over to her sister in my house here out of the hands of those wretches. I also found out that this girl is being sent from place to place amongst men who take girls to cover debts. If you send a man here to Rosales I have the proof and will show you where this girl is and will get the evidence against these people. I understand that the President of Bautista is the man who is at the bottom of the whole affair. I hope you will put a stop to this slavery. I have the man here who owes the money and sold the two girls to this man. I have the sister here; also the other relatives to prove that this girl has worked as a slave for 6 years to cover a debt of twenty pesos and now they want 60 before they will release her. Please release my sister and oblige
“Yours truly,
Ҡ[her mark] Garegorio
Almario.
Witness: (Signed) “W. A. Cole.
“Address Garegorio
Almario,
“c/o W. A. Cole, Rosales,
Pang.”
I have not made the slightest effort to get the peonage records of Philippine assemblymen, but have taken cases as they came, yet three of the limited number here discussed concern members or ex-members of the assembly. Is it any wonder that that body refuses to consider a law prohibiting and penalizing peonage?
My investigation of this matter has developed some interesting phases of human nature. Knowing the certain unpopularity which would result from telling the truth, not a few persons who might have given valuable testimony refused to tell what they knew, or even denied that they knew anything. Others made written statements which I was unable to use, as they insisted that their names be withheld, and I wanted testimony only from witnesses who had the courage of their convictions. Fortunately there was no lack of people unafraid to tell the truth. Among witnesses to the existence of chattel slavery were army officers, constabulary officers, the Manila chief of police and many men of the police force of that city, judges, Catholic priests, the mother superior of a convent, the insular auditor and a number of his deputies, provincial governors, both Filipino and American, provincial treasurers, the director of education, school teachers, an ethnologist, newspaper men, business men and women both English and American. I accepted only written and signed statements. The long list of cases in my official report was a sample list, not an exhaustive one. I stand ready to furnish specific instances of chattel slavery, ad nauseam, giving names of slaves, their vendors and purchasers, prices paid and dates of transactions. I hold more than a thousand typewritten pages of evidence, and it continued to come in up to the day of my departure from Manila.
The attitude of the Filipino politicians toward this great mass of data and the witnesses who furnished it is a most interesting study, from which may be deduced logical conclusions of far-reaching importance. Let us examine it.
A Typical Peon.
Helpless and hopeless, she toils at her endless task, receiving in return a pittance that does not pay the interest on her constantly growing debt.
In the issue of the Boston Herald for June 24, 1912, Sr. Quezon, resident delegate from the Philippines to Congress, published an article entitled “The Filipinos as Legislators,”13 attacking Governor-General Forbes for referring in a public speech to the attitude of the assembly on the slavery question. I will quote and comment on its essential statements:—
“The fact that the Assembly has refused to approve of the bill referred to by Governor Forbes, bespeaks the legislative ability of our Assemblymen, while, on the other hand, the passage by the Commission of said bill indicates either the incompetency or the negligence of the Commissioners. Do we have slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines or not? If we do not, the bill to abolish it is unnecessary. If we do, it is also unnecessary, because the Act passed by Congress, creating the present Philippine Government, which serves as our constitution, already prohibits slavery and compulsory service, and, therefore, no act of the Philippine Legislature is needed to declare it illegal.”
This is a puerile quibble. The act referred to prohibits slavery, but does not penalize it.
“If there is slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines, the Governor-General as the Chief Executive, and the members of the Philippine Commission, who, with the Governor-General, compose the executive department of the Islands, are all of them guilty in not enforcing and executing the constitution of the Archipelago.”
False. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has held that the “constitution” here referred to is non-enforceable without exactly such suppletory legislation as the commission passed and the assembly tabled.
“If there is anything in the Philippines akin to slavery or compulsory service, it can not be found in the provinces to which the legislative jurisdiction of the Assembly extends.”
Utterly false.
“Should there be such a thing in the territories inhabited by the few non-Christian Filipinos, which are under the exclusive control of the Philippine Commission, I am sure the slaveholders can only be the Government officials, who are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Honourable Dean C. Worcester, the head of the executive department in charge of said territories.”
False and absurd. The larger majority of existing slaves are held by Christian Filipinos. Not a single official in the territory in question was subject to appointment or removal by me. Not one has ever owned a slave, to my knowledge. This statement illustrates Quezon’s disregard for the truth.
“It will not be out of place to indicate here the reason wherefor the Philippine Commission has passed the bill alluded to by Governor Forbes. The members of the Philippine Commission are sternly opposed to Philippine independence. Moreover, they are opposed to allowing the Filipino people to have a legislature wholly constituted of natives for reasons too apparent to be mentioned. One of their everyday arguments is ‘that the premature withdrawal of the United States would result in the establishment of an oligarchy composed of small and favoured ruling classes who would oppress the masses.’
“The passage by the Philippine Commission of the anti-slavery bill placed the Philippine Assembly in a very awkward position (as it was perhaps intended to do); to concur in the passage of the bill was to admit that there is such a thing as slavery and compulsory service in the Philippines, which is not a fact. To reject the bill would be construed as indicating that the members of the Assembly were advocates of slavery. The moral courage of our Assemblymen was shown when they took the former course, that of truth. The members of the Commission denounce the attitude of their colegislators as proof of lack of sympathy for the masses of the people.”
False, interesting, and important. There were four Filipino members of the commission at this time, all of whom were in favour of ultimate independence, and one of whom was a leading advocate of immediate independence. All voted for the anti-slavery laws which the assembly refused to pass.
The Filipinos were not wholly to blame for the existence of slavery at the time of the American occupation, but the politicians are unable to grasp the fact that the way to deal with a cancer is to cut it out, not to deny its existence, and by their refusal to legislate have now made themselves fully responsible for the continued existence of slavery and peonage in the regularly organized provinces of the Philippines. The Filipino newspapers have even gone so far as to claim that there could be no slavery until a law defined it, hence to enact such a law would create slavery.
Resident Commissioners Earnshaw and Quezon were prompt and emphatic in their denials of the existence of slavery when Senator Borah read in the Senate Chamber my letter to Dr. Stillman. Sr. Earnshaw did not know any better. Sr. Quezon claims to know the facts. He himself has said:—
“As a Filipino familiar with the facts in the case, I do not hesitate to qualify the letter of Secretary Worcester as being at once false and slanderous. It is false, because there does not exist slavery in the Philippines, or, at least, in that part of the country subject to the authority of the Philippine Assembly. It is slanderous because it presents the Philippine Assembly, by innuendo, if not openly, as a body which countenances slavery.”
He was unquestionably familiar with the facts, or many of them. Did he know of the report of the Filipino Governor Dichoso, describing slavery in Isabela; of that of the Filipino Governor Corrales, describing slavery in Misamis; of that of the Filipino Governor Pimentel, describing the sale of Filipino children into slavery to Chinese;14 of that of the American Governor George Curry, describing slavery in Isabela;15 of that of the American Governor Knight, describing slavery in Nueva Vizcaya;16 of that of the Filipino Governor Sanz,17 describing the enticing from their homes of numerous Filipino children of Romblón and the disposal of them as peons or slaves; of the reports of army, constabulary and police officers; and of the records of courts on slavery and peonage? Under the circumstances explanation or retraction would seem to be in order, but we have had from him only two more puerile quibbles. In a published statement he has said that slavery does not exist as an institution in the Philippines. Who ever said it did? It exists there as a demonstrated fact, and it ought to be made a crime. In another published statement,18 Quezon says:—
“The allegation is a most serious one and we think it desirable to meet the charge directly without hesitation by asserting that it is unqualifiedly false and that the accusations made in the report are not only not sustained, but cannot be sustained by any evidence tending to show that such a ‘system’ exists.”
The placing in quotation marks of a word not used by me fairly illustrates one of the typical methods of the Filipino politician, and for this reason alone I refer to it and to the following statements from the same editorial, which will serve a similar purpose:—
“There is a very serious aspect of this report of Commissioner Worcester’s. If the system he speaks of exists and is known to him—indeed has been known to him for a long time—why did he never correct it? He says that the Philippine Assembly has blocked action. The truth is that he and his fellows had absolute power long before the Philippine Assembly ever came into existence.
“... Mr. Worcester now practically admits that he knew of similar conditions elsewhere than among the Moros, but that he never had anything to say about them and allowed them to go on until, it would seem, he thought that he could make some political capital out of a controversy with the Philippine Assembly regarding anti-slavery legislation.”
It did not lie in my power to correct it. On the Philippine Commission rests the full responsibility for failure to enact anti-slavery legislation from the time when it first learned of the existence of this crime among the Filipinos until it passed its first act prohibiting and penalizing it on April 29, 1909. As I have already shown, the matter was dealt with, in 1903, by directing the inclusion of proper legislation in a proposed new Penal Code never completed. Valuable years were then lost in testing the adequacy of existing law, and when it proved inadequate further time was, in my opinion, needlessly wasted in drafting the necessary act. To this extent, and to this extent only, the commission shares responsibility for existing conditions. Since April 29, 1909, that responsibility has rested on the assembly alone.
I have given two of the reasons for its refusal to act. There is another, but I should have hesitated to give it, as it would have been hard to prove, had not Speaker Osmeña furnished the necessary evidence. He is commonly considered to be the leading Filipino statesman of the day, so special importance attaches to his utterances and he, if any one, can speak with authority concerning the attitude of the assembly. The ominous rumble from the United States which reached these distant shores led him to give out a newspaper interview explaining the inactivity of that body. He said:—
“Never has Mr. Worcester attempted to furnish us with the facts which he has placed before Congress. The bill itself was sent to the Assembly for action but on account of the unfriendliness of the members for the secretary of the interior and the lack of sympathy between the Assembly and him, it was not given the consideration that it would have received if Mr. Worcester had at the same time sent us the facts which he has sent on to the United States.
“Mr. Worcester as the secretary of the interior, and not as commissioner was in duty bound to furnish the Assembly with the facts that he claims to have found. It is the duty of all of the administrative officers of the government to enlighten the legislature and to furnish it with information gained officially by them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Worcester showed that he was not anxious for the Assembly to consider the matter by never once even mentioning the subject to me, as is customary with other matters for legislation which the secretaries have wished taken up by the Assembly.”
If this were not so pathetic it would be very, very funny. The assembly is now made up of 81 Filipino delegates representing 34 provinces. An unfeeling American secretary of the interior, residing at Manila, is charged with having failed to inform them of what was going on under their very noses. All information deemed by the commission necessary to justify legislation was transmitted by me to that body when we lost our slavery case in the Supreme Court.
Never during all the years that this matter has been pending has there been the slightest suggestion that the assembly desired to receive information concerning it. If its members were to tell the half of what they themselves know about slavery and peonage the facts which I have been able to gather would fade into insignificance, but this is not the important thing in this interview.
The important thing is that dislike of the person who happened to introduce in the commission a bill prohibiting slavery and peonage in the Philippines is considered a valid reason for the refusal of the assembly to consider it during four successive years.
Shall thousands of suffering human beings be allowed to go on sweating blood for such a reason?
It is my earnest hope that as a result of the publicity which has now been given this matter there will be speedy action, either by the Philippine Legislature or by the Congress of the United States.
I hope that every right-minded person who reads these lines will insist that we have done with concealment of the truth and suppression of the facts; have done with boggling over hurting the feelings of the Filipino people; and will demand that those who have power to end the disgraceful conditions which now exist in the islands shall promptly and effectively exercise it.
The Penalty for Loyalty to the United States.
This man had his lips cut off and was hamstrung, by order of the bandit chief Felizardo, because he was suspected of giving information to Americans.
The native press has naturally bitterly opposed any investigation of the truth or falsity of my statements. The following extract from a recent editorial is typical of its attitude:—
“Slavery is not slavery unless it has the characteristics of frequency and notoriousness. Is there here, or has there ever been, at least since Christian civilization has reigned, anything that resembles it? Where is, or who has seen previous to now, such characteristic slavery? Mr. Worcester? Let him point it out, let him give a detailed account of it, let him define it. What will you bet that he will not do so? How is he going to do it if it does not exist! It was enough for him to say: “There is slavery in the Philippines” for men, press, government officials and every stripe of public elements in America to admit the possibility of the affirmation and even an investigation of its likelihood to be ordered.
“That is simply absurd. The mere investigation is an offense. The proof must come solely from, and must be demanded solely of, him who imputes the charge. If he does not demonstrate it, if he does not make it patent, further investigation is not needed. All that there was to investigate is investigated: it is that he has lied.”
Nevertheless aroused public sentiment in the United States has forced action here. Governor-General Harrison called the matter to the attention of the assembly in his first speech, and that body is now19 investigating it. Unfortunately there is grave reason to doubt its good faith.
It allowed me to leave Manila without the faintest suggestion that it desired to hear me, and then had the governor-general cable me an invitation to testify and to assist in the investigation when I was halfway home and could not possibly return.
Assemblyman Sandoval, defending in the public press a friend charged with buying a Tagbanua slave who had been thrice sold, says that the several purchasers did not buy the unfortunate man but bought his debt. A debt is not ordinarily purchased for itself and it is admitted that in this instance the man went with it.
The Filipino politicians have hardly approached this matter in a judicial spirit, and the timid and the politic, who refused to give me the information they might have furnished, had some reason for their fears.
The removal of Judge Ostrand and Director of Education Crone, who gave valuable testimony, was loudly demanded on the ground that they were “traducers of the Filipino people.”
The people were urged to “get together” and disprove my statements.
I have been denounced as an enemy of “the Filipino people.”
It has been claimed:—
That my charges were false, and without foundation.
That, if they were true, I myself was to blame for the continued existence of slavery.
That I published my report when I did in order to hold my position.
That I published it when I did in anger because I had lost my position.
That I had been removed because I published it.
In just one instance, so far as I know, has a Filipino considered the possibility that the motive which actuated me was a desire to help many thousands of unfortunate human beings.
Good old Arcadio del Rosario, at one time insurgent governor of Benguet, who has a kindly feeling for the wild-men and was glad to note certain immediate results which followed the publication of my report, has said: “Would that Sr. Osmeña20 might have had the glory of doing what Sr. Worcester has done.”
What is needed to end slavery and peonage is congressional legislation enforced by Americans.
Without hesitation I assert that their existence in the Philippine Islands is the greatest single problem which there confronts the government of the United States, in its effort to build up a respectable and responsible electorate and establish representative government.
Is it reasonable to suppose that the hand which to-day crushes down the Filipino servant, the Filipino labourer, and the wild-man of the hills, will to-morrow raise them up and point them on the way to freedom?