FROM: DEAN *. 1 I: -- ~ C.. S. Ia RXces Tr t REPLY TO J ONES - 1G393A "I '1 1 W. CAMERON FORBES Governor-General ofthe Philippie Islands REPLIES TO FALSE CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE SPEECHES MADE BY WILLIAM A. JONES, OF VIRGINIA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 28 AND FEBRUARY 13, 1913. I' I v L Insf.' I 8706. W. MANILA 1913 'I -~N 2,c A I REPLY TO JONES I resent the false charges made in the House of Representatives: by Hon. William A. Jones, of Virginia, against me and against the American administration of the Philippine Islands. I resent them in my own behalf, in behalf of my associates, and in behalf of my predecessors in the Insular Government. I do not disparage honest criticism, but I submit to the American people that we who represent you here are entitled, at least, to justice and fairness from those who represent you in Congress. Mr. Jones is chairman of the Cbmmittee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, and author of a bill intended to withdraw American control from the Philippine Islands. However I may differ with Mr. Jones as to the wisdom and propriety of terminating in the near future our national guardianship of the Filipiris, I do not question his right to express and support his opinion. I concede that he may properly urge, if he so believes, that the Filipinos, unaided, could and would maintain a better government than is now given them, provided he fairly reports the present government; but I insist that he may not pervert the facts nor say what is false; that he may not, in malice or in disregard, slander me or any other American official to support his contention. A Member of Congress has great power to harm the reputation of others; his high office gives weight to his statements and insures publicity to his accusations; he is exempt under the Constitution from liability, except to Congress itself, for any calumny that he may choose to pronounce in speech or debate; the courts are not available for redress to those whom he may slander; his statements are circulated and preserved in the Congressional Record. Mr. Jones, in addition to this capacity for injury, had the prestige of his position as chairman of the committee especially concerned with the Philippine Islands; it would naturally be presumed that he spoke with knowledge of Philippine affairs. We whom he attacked were on the other side of the world, where his charges could not even reach us for a month or more, and our denials could in no way be heard until long after the charges had been made. We had no adequate s 4 REPLY TO JONES means of reply and no right nor opportunity to be heard in the place where we were accused. We occupy a somewhat conspicuous position before the world, at the head of a unique and interesting experiment in government. We serve among a suspicious and credulous people, to whom the false statements, made by our own countryman in high position, would surely come to weaken their confidence in us and4 in the American people. Surely it behooved Mr. Jones to speak the truth of us-not to malign his countrymen without good groundsnot to accuse us in bad faith or without knowledge of the facts. In Mr. Jones's speeches of January 28 and February 13, 1913, before the House of Representatives, he has traduced me and my associates in the government of the Philippines. Those speeches, so far as they refer to the Insular administration, contain few accurate statements, much suppression of the true, much suggestion of the false, and not a little outright untruth. Many things concerning which Mr. Jones spoke were matters of public record; all of the facts were readily accessible to any Member of Congress, and especially to the chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs. We have no recourse for our vindication except this, to present the facts to the American people and let them judge between Mr. Jones and us. I charge that a Member of Congress who, having the means of knowing the truth, maliciously or recklessly slanders American public servants is unfit to represent the State of Virginia. I greatly mistake the temper of the American people if they, knowing the facts, do not rebuke an unwarranted attack upon the honor of the Philippine Government, which is, before the world, the honor of the American nation. Unfortunately there are many Americans who know little of what has been accomplished in the Philippines, of the form of government and the method of administration. In order that the issue may be clearly understood, it seems necessary, before taking up Mr. Jones's statements and answering them, to preface a short description and history of the American government of these Islands. As everyone knows, the Philippine Islands were acquired as a result of the war with Spain and the consequent treaty of peace. Their government was necessarily, during the first years, of a military character, controlled-by the President of the United States as commander in chief of the national forces. As the insurrection waned, the possibility appeared of substituting civil for military government, and in 1900 President McKinley sent to the Islands a commission of five, headed by the Hon. William H. Taft, of Ohio, confer. ring upon this conamission legislative powers, and instructing ii to establish and extend civil government as opportunity afforded REPLY TO JONES -5 On the 4th day of July, 1901, by order of the President, the office of Military Governor of the Philippines was abolished, and the executive authority in civil affairs was conferred upon Mr. Taft, with the title of Civil Governor of the Philippine Islands, a title which was later changed to that of Governor-General. The bureaus and offices of the Government were grouped in four executive departments, called, respectively, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Finance and Justice, the Department of Commerce and Police, and the Department of Public Instruction. One of the Commissioners was appointed chief of each of these executive departments, with the title of Secretary. Later, the Comjission was increased to nine members, by the appointment of three ESipinos in 1901 and a fourth in 1908; since 1908 it has consisted X the Governor-General, as presiding officer, four Commissioners, who are also heads of executive departments, and four Commissioners without portfolios ---- For several years the Secretaryship of Finance and Justice has been held by a Filipino, and one of the Commissioners without portfolio has been an American. The proportion of Aniricans to Filipinos has remained five to four. The Governor-General, -members of the Commission, and heads of executive departments are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commission had sole legislative powers until October, 1907. The Act of Conigress of July 1, 1902, commonly called "the Philippines Bill," provided for the institution, after certain prelininaries, of the Philippine Legislature, to consist of the Commission and the Assembly, the latter to be composed of members elected by the people ofthe Philippine Islands. From the organization of this Legislature, it was to supplant the Commission as the legislative body in that part of the Islands not inhabited by Moros or other nonChristian tribes. The excepted territory was left under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission, and was not to participate in the election of the Assembly. The Philippines Bill provided against the possibility of the paralyzation of government by disagreement between the two Houses, by a clause to the effect that if the Legislature should adjourn without passing appropriation bills for the support of government the total amount of the last appropriations for such purposes should be deemed to be appropriated. The first Philippine Legislature was convened and organized on the 16th day of October, 1907, and the Assembly has since consisted of 80 and 81 members, all Filipinos, elected by the people of Manila and the provinces. The Legislature has met annually in regular session, and occasionally, at the call of the Governor-General, in special session. 8705 0. W.-2 6 REPLY TO JONES Mr. Jones's speech of January 28, entitled by him "Misgovernment in the Philippines and Cost to the United States of American Occupation," was addressed to the House of Representatives sitting in Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the fortification appropriation bill. The fact, disclosed by the record, that time for its delivery had been secured some days beforehand negatives the possibility of attributing the inaccuracies of the speech to lack of preparation. The speech opens with criticism of President Taft for presuming to oppose the pending "Jones Bill" for the abandonment of the Philippine Islands. Referring to a reported statement of the President that the self-governing colonies of Great Britain afford examples for the future relations of the Philippine Islands to the United States, Mr. Jones asserts that, while the people of Australia and Canada are virtually free and independent, the American government of the Filipinos "is an oligarchy of the most intolerable, despotic, and unrestricted character," an "irresponsible and odious autocracy." In support of this unpleasant allegation Mr. Jones marshals a host of misstatements. He charges me and my associates of the Commission with causing the failure of the annual appropriations for the support of government by insisting upon extravagant and selfish provisions which the Assembly could nft accept. He insinuates that the Commission intentionally provoked the deadlocks in order to cheat the Assembly of its share in the control of the revenues; and alleges that I have expended the public funds arbitrarily and extravagantly, in violation of law and in disregard of the wishes and interests of the people, and that I and the Commission have not only squandered the revenues, but have misused the gold-standard fund and the congressional donation of 1903. He asserts that Baguio, the hill station of the Islands, is a pleasure resort maintained for the sole benefit of American officials with public funds and in disregard of the needs and wishes of the Filipinos. He accuses American officials of grafting and me of protecting them and continuing them in office after their guilt had been proven. He says that Army and Navy officers and the Americans in Insular service are insincere and untrustworthy and willing to betray the interests of the Filipinos to advance their own interests and "hold their jobs." I shall quote many of these allegations of Mr. Jones's and reply to them. The rest of his speech, with which I have no present concern, consists of an effort to show that the occupation and retention of the Philippine Islands have imposed upon the United States a greatly increased burden of military and naval expenditure. Several Representatives took issue with Mr. Jones, notably the REPLjY TO JONES 7 late Mr. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sherley, of Kentucky, and Mr. Redfield, of New York, the two last named from the Democratic side. To these defenders Mr. Jones replied in his speech of February 13 to which he gives the unhappy title "The Truth as to Conditions in the Philippines." As the second speech is substantially a repetition of the former charges, IsTall quote from it only one brief paragraph. For greater convenience, I shall present the case in parallel columns-on the left Mr. Jones's statements, and opposite each a recital of the true facts, with my comment. The quotations are from the Congressional Record. The first reference is to the matter of general appropriations for the support of the Insular Government. MR. JaNES SAYS: "Twice has the legislature failed to pass. these supply bills. One of the causes for the disagreements which led to the deadlock between the two branches of the Legislature and which resulted in these failures to pass appropriation bills was that the Assembly insisted that the salaries of the members of the Commission, who were also heads of exe c u t i v e departments, should be so reduced as to make them more nearly correspond to= those received by members of the American Cabinet." THESE ARE THE FACTS: The first deadlock resulting in failure to pass a "supply bill" occurred in the legislative session of 1910-1911. In that session each House of the Legislature passed its own appropriation bill, and the disagreement resulted from the failure of the conference committee to reconcile the differences in the two bills. The bill which originated in the Assembly and passed that House continued the salaries- of the Commissioners who were also heads of executive departments at $15,500, the same amount which was provided in the bill passed by the Commission, and the same amount that had constantly appeared in' appropriation bills since it was fixed by President McKinley in 1901. The legislative session of 1911-1912 again resulted in the failure of the two Houses to agree upon a general appropriation bill for the support of the Goernment, but in this session the bill passed by the Assembly and that approved by the Commission again fixed the salaries in question at $15,500. It is obvious that the failure of the two Houses to agree could hardly tave been due to an item upon whiich both were in accord, and which was identical;n both bills. 8 REPLY TO JONES Before the first deadlock occurred, the Legislature had enacted three annual appropriation bills for the support of the Government, the Assembly concurring necessarily in all three (Acts Nos. 1873, 1895, and 1989). Each of these laws fixed the salaries of the commissioners who' were heads of departments at $15,500. The only alteration of legislators' perquisites since the institution of the Philippine Assembly is by Act No. 1803, the third law passed by the Legislature,.which increased the salaries of members of the Assembly from $10 to $15 per diem, provided a salary of $8,000 for the speaker of the Assembly, and made these increased salaries effective from the date of the organization of the Assembly. "But the chief cause of disagreement was the insistence of the Commission upon the right which it claimed to appropriate large sums of money out of the public revenues of the Insular Treasury, to be expended upon what is known as the Benguet Road, without the con-* currence and despite the earnest opposition of the other coordinate branch of the Legislature * * *." In each session of the Legislature which resulted in disagreement as to appropriations, the Commission passed a general appropriation bill, which was submitted to the Assembly. In neither case did this bill, as approved by the Commission, contain any provision whatever for expenditure upon the Benguet Road, nor has the Commission in either of these sessions proposed an amendment for such purpose to the Assembly appropriation bill. Just as the disagreement cannot have been caused by the item of Commissioners' salaries, which was identical in the Assembly bill and the Commission bill, so it cannot have been caused by an item which was absent from both bills. In 1908 and 1909 the general appropriation laws passed by the Legislature include among the purposes of the allotment to the Bureau of Public Works "the maintenance and betterment of the Benguet Road." The appropriation bill passed in 1910 did not contain this provi REPLY TO JONES 9 sion, which had been eliminated at my instance when I became Governor-General. Since 1909, and since I have been Chief Executive of the Islands, the requirements of the Benguet Road have never been urged nor proposed by the Commission to the Assembly, but have been met by appropriations made by the Commission in its exclusive legislative capacity, as the road is in non-Christian territory. Since the Assembly was instituted, it has never disapproved an appropriation for the Benguet Road proposed by the Commission. Both of the causes assigned by Mr. Jones for the failure of appropriation bills are unrue, as Mr. Jones well knew if he examined the records of the Philippine Legislature. "It was these disagreements between the Commission and the Assembly that resulted in the nonpassage of the annual supply bills of which I have spoken, and I believe that every liberty-loving and rightthinking American citizen, when he comes to understand their motives, will applaud Speaker Osmefa and his legislative associates for the courage and patriotism which they thus twice displayed." The political parties in the Philippines have had for some years no sharply defined issues. Contestants for seats in the Assembly have frequently made their campaigns upon charges of governmental extravagance, and pledges that they would devote themselves to lessening public expenditures. Delegates elected upon such a platform seem usually to find their conspicuous opportunity for redeeming their preelection pledge of economy when the annual appropriation bill is under consideration. Frequently they have supported, and sometimes passed, special appropriation bills carrying in the aggregate a far-greater amount fltan they proposed to save in the general bill. For example, in the year from March 1, 1910, to March 1, 1911, the Assembly originated and passed special appropriation bills aggregating $6,474,403.75, besides bills involving undetermined expense. Some of these bills became laws by the concurrence of the Commission7 But these 10 REPLY TO JONES special appropriations, presented and acted upon singly, attract little public attention; and, notwithstanding the increased revenues and increased needs of the Government, many of the delegates, having charged extravagance, insist that the general appropriation must be less than that of preceding years. Probably they are the more obdurate because of their reliance upon the provision of the Philippines Bill which insures that in case of adeadlock the total amount of the last appropriation laws shall become available, so that without serious risk to the continuance of the Government they may pose before their constituents as champions of retrenchment frustrated by the obstinacy of the Commission. Another cause for the failure to pass supply bills has been the practice of the Assembly to send its bill to the Commission on the day of adjournment, thus allowing no opportunity even to translate the bill into English, to say nothing of opportunity to study its provisions. The lack of time makes it impossible to effect, by conference or compromise, a reconciliation of the differences of opinion of the two Houses. The Commission has tried to v meet this difficulty by preparing its own appropriation bill and sending it to the Assembly when the session was drawing near its close and it became apparent that the lower House would not send up its own bill in time for due examination; but the Assembly has declined even to consider any such measure originating in the Commission, jealously insisting upon a pretended sole privilege, quite without warrant in law, of initiating bills of appro- priation. REPLY TO JONES 11 These are the real causes for the failure of the supply bills on the two occasions to which Mr. Jones refers. "Whether or not the The "provision of law" to which Mr. Commission deliberately Jones refers is found in -section 7 of the planned to bring about Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (the Philthis unfortunate condi- ippines Bill), and reads as follows: tion of affairs in order "If at the termination of any session to deprive the Filipinos the appropriations necessary for the supof'any control over their port of government shall not have been revenues, the result has made, an amount equal to the sums been the same. Acting appropriated in the last appropriation under the authority of bills for such purposes shall be deemed to the provision of law be appropriated; and until the Legislature which I have just quoted, shall act in suclf behalf the Treasurer the Governor-General has may, with the advice of the Governorordered the appropria- General, make the payments necessary tion of a sum equal to for the purposes aforesaid." the total appropriations It was Congress-not the Governormade in the previous General-that ordered the appropriation year for the- support of and provided how its total amount should the Government." be determined. The function of the Governor-General is limited to advising the payments after the appropriation is made available. I could not, if I wished, prevent the appropriation, and I could not increase its aggregate amount over the total carried by the last appropriation bills for like purposes. Mr. Jones has sought to fix upon the Governor-General a responsibility which - belongs to Congress, and to give an impression of arbitrary action where, in fact, as he must have known, there was no action whatever. "Having thus gotten The last- appropriation bill passed by into his hands more than the Philippine Legislature was Act No. -$12,000,000 in 1911 and 1989, which provided, for the support of a little less than $14,- the Government for the fiscal year ending 12 REPLY TO JONES 000,000 in 1912 of the June 30, 1911, a total of $8,713,894. public revenues of the Under the Act of Congress above quoted, Filipino people," this was the sum "deemed to be appropriated" upon the adjournment of the Legislature in 1911, and the total amount of my letter of advice to the Treasurer in 1911 was exactly $8,713,894. Mr. Jones has exaggerated in this instance to the extent of something more than $3,000,000. In 1912 I was in the United States on leave of absence, and the letter of advice to the Treasurer in this year was issued by the Acting Governor-General, Newton W. Gilbert. As the Legislature had not acted in the meantime, the amount 'kdeemed to be appropriated" was again $8,713,894. The letter of advice of the Acting Governor-General to the Treasurer in 1912 authorized payments to a total of $8,625,496.50. Mr. Jones's figures for 1912 are incorrect to the extent of about $5,000,000. Mr. Jones has apparently based his extravagant misstatements upon the total expenditures of the Insular Government for 1911 and 1912, neglecting to show that a great part of these expenditures was authorized, not by the automatic appropriation and the letters of advice, but by specific acts of the Legislature and fixed charges. While the Legislature had failed to pass general appropriation bills, it had enacted many laws carrying special appropriations, such as, for example, the appropriation in 1911 of $2,677,250 for public works. The Treasurer continued to pay out large amounts for fixed charges authorized by existing law, such as interest on the public debt, guaranteed interest on railway bonds, sinkingfund payments, and for payments under,continuing appropriations made by the Legislature in previous sessions. REPLY TO JONES 13 "the Governor-General proceeded to spend these large sums according to his own will, and as in his sole judgment seemed desirable, and with an utter disregard for the purposes for which the prior legislative appropriations had been made. Is there, I ask, a Representative upon this floor who, after reading the law- under which Governor Forbes is supposed to have acted, will not denounce his actions as both arbitrary and illegal? Many an official has been impeached for less than this." "Baguio and the Benguet Road were, of course, liberally pro8705 0. W.-4 It is true that I exercised my own will and judgment in the application of the $8,713,894 (not $12,000,000 or $14,000,000k. The Act of Congress required me to do so, and I could not, if I would, escape the responsibility; but that I acted "with utter disregard" of the purposes of the prior legislative appropriations is merely one of Mr. Jones's reckless misstatements. The table, Appendix A, shows the distribution of the total appropriations under the last appropriation act of the Legislature and under the Governor-General's letter of advice in 1911. It appears that the total variation in the letter of advice of 1911 amounted to $13,500, or three-twentieths of 1 per cent. In view of the necessarily changing requirements of various bureaus from year to year, a deviation of three-twentieths of 1 per cent can hardly be termed "utter disregard" of the legislative apportion-> ment of the previous year. It would seem that Mr. Jones, in making his accusation, must have neglected to take the simple precaution of looking into the records. Mr. Jones denounces me for the allotments of both 1911 and 1912, notwithstanding the fact that the letter of advice to the Treasurer in 1912 was issued by Acting Governor-General Gilbert in my absence. Of course, the~ principle involved is the same, regardless of the individual who acted; but a prudent and well-informed accuser, acting in good faith, would hardly have specified the act of Mr. Gilbert as a ground for the suggested impeachment of Mr. Forbes. In these allotments "Baguio and the Benguet Road" were not provided for at all. There is no allotment for these pur 14 REPLY TO JONES vided for, new offices poses in the letter of advice to the Treaswere created, and the urei either in 1911 or 1912. salaries of e x i s t i n g No new "offices" were created, although offices increased." certain new employments were authorized. Some salaries were increased and some reduced. These points will be further explained in another connection. Mr. Jones carefully refrained from showing, as is the fact, that the changes in the personnel and salaries effected by the letters of advice to the Treasurer did not increase the total appropriation. Whatever additional expenses were made by these changes were offset by economies and reductions in other items. "It is needless to say If I had decreased the salaries of heads that the salaries of the of executive departments from those fixed heads of executive de- in the last annual appropriation law, Mr. partments were not de- Jones would doubtless have cited such creased." deviation in support of his charge of "utter disregard" of the previous ex- pressed purposes of the Legislature. It should be borne in mind that the Assembly appropriation bills which failed of passage did not decrease these salaries. "It is asserted by a I was advised, when the question arose, former member of the that "offices" were those positions in the Commission that there Government service whose duties are prewere as many as 123 scribed by law. I neither created nor new offices thus created, abolished any of the offices so defined. I among them a secretary did, however, authorize additional employto the Governor-Gen- ees in various bureaus, and certain reareral at an annual salary rangements of personnel, so that the net of $4,500," increase in the number of employees was approximately the number that Mr. Jones states. Under the civil-service law of the Philippine Islands the Governor-General is authorized to make certain changes of employments, consolidating or dividing positions, and readjusting the proportions of employees of different grades REPLY TO JONES 15 within the bureaus. Thus, for example, he.may substitute for an American at an annual salary of $2,000 two Filipinos at $~,200 and $800. During every fiscal year many such changes are effected upon recommendations of bureau chiefs. Moreover, in a new and constantly developing government it transpires from year to year that additional employees are needed, andc every annual appropriation bill Snakes provision for such changes, upon recommendation of the bureau chiefs concerned. In my letter of advice to the Trearer in 1911, I authorized many changes in personnel, some under the provisions of the civil-service law, and some under authority of section 7 of the Philippines Bill, above quoted, as they would doubtless have been made in the appropriation bill, if passed by the Legislature. The creation of 123 new employments in a total of 6,734 employees of the Insular Government-or less than 2 per centhardly seems startling enough to-ju-stify the amazement and indignation manifested. by Mr. Jones. It is true that I established the new position of secretary to the Governor-General, although the salary is $4,000 and not $4,50Q as asserted by Mr. Jones's informant. The rate of salary was fixed at my request by the Vice-Governor and the Insular Auditor. Under previous appropriation bills I had been allowed a private secretary at a salary of $2,500, and had employed additional secretaries at my own expense for the proper discharge of the duties imposed upon me by law. While I 'personally was willing to bear this expense, it seemed to me just to my successors in office to establish the precedent of providing at public cost a sufficient personal staff for the due performance 16 REPLY TO JONES of the duties of the office of GovernorGeneral. Having established the precedent, I left the old position of private secretary vacant, so the increased expense by the creation of the new position was only $1,500 per annum. "and it is a most amazing and stupendous fact that the expenditures on account of bureaus and offices for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, were $9,638,369.80 as against $8,318,051.56 for ~ the next preceding year, the excess being a mere bagatelle of $1,320,318.24 in gold. A people whose self-restraint is equal to orderly a n d peaceful submission to acts of tyranny and oppression sich as these are surely capable of governing themselves." "In pursuing this arbitrary and, as I charge, absolutely illegal course t h e Governor-General acted, at least, so far as is publicly-known, without legal advice, although not himself a lawyer. He consulted neither the There would be nothing "amazing and stupendous" about this if it were a fact, which it' is not. The chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs is apparently unable to distinguish between expenditure and appropriation. The general appropriations for the two years referred to were exactly the same, as has been shown. Some bureaus, however, are maintained wholly or partly by their own earnings; and for this reason, with others, the total expenditures of bureaus and offices in successive years may increase or decrease, although the appropriation remains constant. Mr. Jones's figure of $9,638,369.80 appears to be taken from the Insular Auditor's Annual Report for 1912, and is the total net expenditure under Schedule No. 1 "Bureaus and offices" and Schedule No. 2 "Capital operation accounts." But the comparable amount for the next preceding year, as shown by the Auditor's report, is $8,780,169.69, instead of the sum Mr. Jones names, which I cannot identify. By a little juggling with figures Mr. Jones has padded his point by 54 per cent. I certainly did not act without legal advice. I acted by the advice of the Insular Auditor, a lawyer, and of the Secretary of War, Hon. Jacob M. Dickinson, a lawyer, and, as it happens, a Democrat. I did not consult the Attorney-General, nor his subordinate, the Solicitor-General, because the law directed me to other counselors whose opinions in this matter were REPLY TO JONES 17 Solicitor-General nor the Attorney-General of the Islands, and, as I am informed, these legal advisers of the Government did not agree with the Governor-General in his construction of the law or approve his action. "* * * Whether or not the Filipinos are capable of self-government, I question the right of Governor-General Forbes to longer govern them." controlling. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have never expressed the opinion that Mr. Jones attributes to them. Under Act 1792, known as the "Accounting Act," the Auditor of the Philippine Islands is made the arbiter of questions involving the expenditure of public mney. His ruling, when sustained by the Governor-General, is final. The Auditor of the-Philippine Islands is not appointed by the Governor-General,. but by the President of the United States, and the Governor-General, as well as any other official of the Philippines Government, is bound by the ruling of the Auditor, unless reversed by the Secretary of War. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has so held in the recent case of Lamb vs. Phipps (vol. 22, Phil. Repts., at p. 477). Upon the failure of the Legislature to provide for the support of the Government in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1912, I at first intended to follow exactly the provisions of the last appropriation act, as this could have been done without great inconvenience to the Government. But the Auditor, of his own motion, in an opinion dated October 5, 1911, advised me that section 7 of the Philippines Bill, above quoted, gave me the power to distribute at my own discretion, within certain limits, the total appropriation available. It had become apparent to me that if the Legislature should continue to disagree, changes in conditions-might make the allotment of Act 1989 quite unsuitable, and that the establishment of a precedent, as well as the present convenience of the Government, made it advisable for me to exercise the power, if I had it, of making changes in the distribution of the total sum automatically reappropriated. Not 18 REPLY TO JONES being a lawyer, and desiring to use every safeguard afforded me by the law, I submitted this opinion of the Auditor to the Secretary of War, who instructed me to follow the decision of the United States district court for Porto Rico upon a similar question. This decision, in the case of Navarro vs. Post, governor of Porto Rico, interprets an Act of Congress providing for failure of the Porto Rican Legislature to pass appropriation bills, which is- substantially identical with the analogous provision of the Philippines Bill. The decision of the Federal court in Porto Rico, which, I am informed, is the only judicial determination of the point, fully supports the ruling of the Auditor of the Philippine Islands and my action based thereon. "Whenever attention is directed to acts such-as these on the part of the Government which we have set up in the Philippines, the reply has always been glibly made, as if that were sufficient in itself to disarm criticism and forever silence all complaint, that within the past ten years public schools have greatly multiplied in the Philippines; that the inhabitants of the Islands have made wonderful progress in the acquisition of knowledge of various kinds; that sanitary conditions have improved; and that many important public works have been inaugu The charge of waste and extravagance is in general terms. Meeting it in the same way, I deny it absolutely; I say that the American administration of the Philippine Islands has been economical and careful and that the proportion of benefits to expenditure has been high; I challenge comparison of the Philippine Islands with any government, whether in the United States or elsewhere. The conclusive reason why Mr. Jones gives neither facts nor figures is that there are none to support his charge. Unless the falsehood was intentional, his obsession has led him into his accusation of waste and extravagance without even a cursory investigation. Mr. Jones grudgingly admits that the Philippines have made great progress; I shall attach as Appendix B a table prepared for another purpose which shows graphically something of this progress. During the period of this advance all the current expenses of government as REPLY TO JONES 19 rated as a result of well our beneficent rule. The impr Filipino who does not curre accept this reply as con- the t clusive of the question is lands frequently denounced as pal — an ingrate. Indeed, his the i failure to accept such gove] reasoning as conclusive is capit cited as evidence of his prool incapacity for self-gov- revei ernment. Nobody denies profil these things. Nobody $4.85.denies that there has Units been great educational comr and material progress in and the Philippines. I will 19* even admit, for it is a perc fact, that the parcel post for ] was in the Philippines per < before Congress could bond be convinced that it was not too expensive to be thought of for the farmers of the United states. But it must not be forgotten that every dollar of the money contributed for these purposes came out of the pockets of the Filipinos. Nor must it be forgotten that much of it, as I have shown, was needlessly afid shamefully wasted, and that the benefits derived from its expenditure, g even in those cases where the expenditure was proper, have rarely, if ever, been commensurate with the cost. * * * as the cost of important permanent ovements have been met from the.nt revenues. In the fiscal year 1912;otal revenues of the Philippine Is— Insular, provincial, and munici-amounted to $2.28 per capita of estimated population. The fact of rnmental work well done with a per a tax of $2.28 is, in itself, convincing f of economical administration. The iues of Japan for 1912, excluding ts from Government monopolies, were per capita. The revenues of the ed States (Federal only) for 1912, as )iled by the Department of Commerce Labor, were $7.25 per capita; Canada,, $18.89 per capita; Cuba, 1911, $21.53 capita. The budget of New York City L912 shows an expenditure of $34.37 capita, and the interest on the city's ed debt amounted to $6.87 per capita. 20 -"When the opportunity is afforded -ne I shall undertake to give this House some idea as to what extent the Government we have-4mposed upon the Filipinos has been extravagant and wasteful." REPLY TO JONES "This reckless extrav- The financial statement for the fiscal agance and studied dis- year ending June 30, 1912, is contained regard for the interests in Appendix C. The appropriations for of the poor and defense- this fiscal year were not fixed either by less Filipinos has led, myself or by the Commission, but by as might have been ex- Congress and the Legislature. As -has pected, to a deficit, or been shown, the general appropriation for perhaps, it would be support of the Government was the same more accurate to say a as that fixed by the Legislature for the deficit was only averted previous year, and this by virtue of secduring the past fiscal tion 7 of the Philippines Bill. Although year by the transference the Legislature failed to pass the annual of $1,698,513.82 from the supply bill, it did enact in the session of gold-standard fund to 1910-11, a number of bills covering the general funds in the special appropriations, and, notably, two Treasury. Unless, there- bills which authorized the expenditure okf fore, great reduction in $2,677,250 for public works. This approexpenditures is made priation for public works was in excess during the year 1913 of the amount then expected to be availthere will be a very large able for the purpose from the revenues deficit, for I cannot be- for the year 1912. The bills therefore prolieve that the Commis- vided that the amount appropriated sion will again invade the should be available only as released by the gold-standard fund, al- Governor-General. It so happened that though I confess that I revenues for the fiscal year 1912 were am prepared for any- greater than had been estimated, and this thing it may do." fact, together with the transfer to the General Treasury of the surplus lying idle in the gold-standard fund, made it possible - for me to release during the year a great part of the amount appropriated for public works without causing a deficit. If the transfer from the gold-standard fund had REPLY TO JONES 21 not been made, I should have been obliged to withhold a corresponding amount from public works; but in any event there would have been no deficit. The transfer of $1,698,513.82 from the gold-standard fund to the general funds was not made by the Commission as Mr. Jones implies, nor by me, but by Act No. 2083 of the Philippine Legislature, with, of course, the concurrence of the Assembly. The transfer was suggested by the Secretary of War, and was in no sense an invasion of the gold-standard fund, which is still maintained intact at the figure provided by law and deemed sufficient to support the Insular currency. During several years the earnings of the fund had accumulated a surplus above the amount necessary and required for this purpose, and it was this surplus lying idle while the Philippines needed roads and other public works, which was transferred to the General Treasury and made available for useful purposes. As to the financial operations of the fisal year 1913, the Treasury had a surplus of $790,855 at the close of the year, despite an unexpected loss of revenue in the last six months of over $1,500,000, and notwithstanding sbveral unusually large appropriations by the Legislature for special purposes. "For the Commission has not in the past hesitated to lay its hands upon a, if anything, more sacred fund than this. * * * "The President said in New York that the Phil The "sacred fund" to which Mr. Jones refers is the sum of $3,000,000 appropriated by Congress in the Act of March 3, 1903, as follows — For the relief of the distress in the Philippine Islands; to be expended under the direction and in the discretion of the Philippine Government in such proportions as they deem wise, 22 REPLY TO JONES ippines have cost the United States to date only $3,000,000 for civil expenses, and that this money was appropriated to save them from starvation. Well do I remember that Congress donated this money to -save the famishing Filipinos from starvation, but does President Taft know that a considerable part of it was expended on the Benguet automobile road, of which I have spoken? The act of Congress declared that the money should be expended 'for the relief of distress in the Philippine Islands.' In the estimation of the Commission these starving Filipinos stood more in need of an automobile road than of the rice to purchase which the American people in their generosity gave t h i s money." in the direct purchase and distribution or sale of farm implements, farm animals, supplies, and necessaries of life, and through the employment of labor in the construction of Government wagon roads, and other public works, to be immediately available, three million dollars." The Commission did not "hesitate to lay its hands upon" this fund because Congress had specifically imposed upon it the duty of disbursing the money. In the exercise of its discretion, the Commission found that, except in cases of emergency, the nfoney might be more wisely expended upon the construction of useful public works, which should give employment in distressed districts, than in direct gifts of food and other necessaries. The Commission constructed roads with this money, and applied a part of it to the construction of the Benguet Road, not because it believed that the people stood more in need of roads than of rice, but because this method provided both the roads and the rice. It does not appear that any distress or suffering in the Philippine Islands has been unrelieved by the reason of the employment of a great part of this relief fund upon useful public works instead of in direct charity. Mr. Jones, by occasional reference to my name, has let the impression be given that I am responsible, or at least share in the responsibility, for all the acts and omissions which he criticizes. In the expenditure of the congressional relief fund I personally have had a very small part. When I first came to the Islands in 1904, there remained of this three million dollar fund only $444,614.76; and when I became Governor-General in 1909 all of the fund had been expended. I would not have it inferred from this REPLY TO JONES 23 explanation, however, that I disapprove the method of application of the congressional relief fund. "But at the proper time and in due season those who are responsible for conditions in the Philippines will have graver charges t h a n these to answer. I predict, for instance, that somebody will be required to explain why it was that three prominent American officials of the, city of Manila were not removed from office as was recommended by the committee appointed to investigate the grafting charges preferred against, them. Some of their subordinates were prosecuted and convicted; but, notwithstanding the findings and recommendations of a committee of investigation, o n e of whom was Solicitor-General Harvey and another General Bandholtz, Chief of t h e Constabulary, their superiors h a v e escaped all punishment and two of them are still enjoying the salaries of their lucrative offices. The third has since been removed from office for usury and extortion. * * * The only grafting charges against the three American officials whose-eonduct was investigated were preferred by editorial articles in a Manila weekly paper. These publications brought about a criminal prosecution of the editor of the paper, who published,'on April 19, 1913, a full editorial retraction, and thereafter pleaded guilty to the criminal charge of libel and paid the fine imposed upon him by the court. It is true that some of the subordinates of the three American officials were prosecuted, but it is not true that they were convicted. As a matter of fact, they were acquitted by the court. As to the higher officials referred tothe ruling in one case was made by me, and in the other two, during my absence from the Philippines, by the Acting Governor-General. The committee on which SolicitorGeneral Harvey and General Bandholtz served found all three officials guiltless of dishonesty or grafting. It recommended, after an ex parte investigation, that the resignations of two of the three be accepted and the duties of the third somewhat changed, and these recommendations were based upon a supposed loss of public confidence, evidenced chiefly by the libelous articles subsequently retracted. Upon a full and fair hearing the charges collapsed and the three officials were completely vindicated. Mr. Jones's misrepresentation as to this matter can hardly be other than malicious. In getting the details which he gives he must have got some, at least, of the essential facts, and these he has suppressed or.falsified in order that he might charge 24 REPLY TO JONES "I asserted in the speech which I delivered on the 28th of January last that three prominent American officials had been charged with graft, had been found guilty by a board appointed to investigate the charges, and yet had been shielded from punishment. Has any denial of this serious- charge been made by anybody h e r e or elsewhere?" (Speech of Hon. William A. Jones in the House of Representatives on February 13, 1913. Congressional Record, page 3456.) American officials with graft and with protecting grafters. I believe I have quoted enough of Mr. Jones's misstatements to prove his unreliability. Many errors and inaccuracies I have not noticed. But, lest my silence might be misunderstood, I must advert briefly to the establishment and maintenance of Baguio and the Benguet Road, which Mr. Jones calls "inexcusable expenditures." The provision of a "hill station" in a tropical country requires no argument for its justification. Throughout the Tropics no civilized government, whether independent or colonial, has failed to give its people, if possible, facilities for resorting to the mountains for the recuperation which is afforded by changes of season in the Temperate Zones. I consider the development of Baguio, 5,000 feet above the sea, in the pine forests of Benguet, one of the most notable achievements of American administration in the Philippine Islands, and I may say this the more freely because the project was decided upon and construction well under way before I entered the Insular service. The Benguet Road is the highway into the mountains built by the Government to provide convenient access to the city of Baguio and the Province of Benguet. It cost a great deal of money and its upkeep is expensive, and there has been criticism on this account from Filipinos and from Americans. We know now that another REPLY TO JONES 25 route would have been cheaper both in construction and in maintenance. But we have learned a great deal about the relation of tropical rainfall to road building since we built the Benguet Road; engineers, then believed to be expert, reported that the road could be completed for a moderate sum, and when the mistake became apparent the investment was too considerable to be abandoned. Baguio, which Mr. Jones calls 4a residential park," has a population of 3,500 throughout the year, increasing to 8,000 during the hot season of the lowlands. It is the market place for many thousands of people of the Province of,Benguet. It contains schools, charitable institutions, hospitals, and a recuperation camp of the Army. In March, April, and May, when the heat of Manila lowers the vitality and lessens the efficiency even of the natives, the Government_ sends to Baguio 860 employees of whom 620 are Filipinos. It has been found that the expense of this partial transfer of the seat of government is fully repaid in increase of efficiency and betterment of health of employees and in decreasing the need of vacations. The "handsome homes" of American officials, to which Mr. Jones refers, are seven, and, excepting my own residence, their average value is~ $3,175. Americans, Filipinos, and Europeans, not in Government service, resort to Baguio during the hot months, every year in increasing numbers. The Government automobile stages during the "season" of 1913 carried over the Benguet Road 22,000 passengers. The Manila Railroad Company is spending $2,000,000 to build a branch line to Baguio, of which 70 per cent of the grading is already completed. There remain to be considered the documents which Mr. Jones has printed in support of his spwch and to which he refers as authorities. These are newspaper interviews of Charles B. Elliott and Dr. John R. McDill, and letters of Charles B. Elliott, L. M. Southworth, and Wm. S. Lyon. Mr. Elliott is ex-Secretary of Commerce and Policy; President Taft requested his resignation upon my representation that his character and services were unsatisfactory. Mr. Lyon was once an official of the Bureatr of Agriculture. Mr. Southworth has been prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila; I thought best to disappoint him in his aspirations for advancement, and he has recently suffered further disappointment in his ambition to serve on the Philippine Commission, or the Supreme Court, or somewhere; Dr. John R. McDill has beenchief surgeon of the Philippine General Hospital and professor in the Philippine Medical College; his separation from the service was not of his own volition. All these witnesses have personal grievances and resentments which affect their credibility. 26 REPLY TO JONES Mr. Jones has been a willin and credulous listener to these soreheads. Obviously his whole purpose has been to discredit the Philippines Government, and in its furtherance he has accepted and used anything injurious that offered, testing his material not for truth, but for effect. His misrepresentations are plainly malicious, for he has made them either knowing the truth or deliberately avoiding its knowledge. I know that there are Americans who believe with Mr. Jones that, whatever fate may befall the Filipinos, the United States would be justified, for its own interests, in abandoning the Philippine Islands and thus escaping a responsibility. There are some, no doubt, who agree with him that the Filipinos are entirely capable of maintaining, unaided by us, a satisfactory government. But I think he will have scant success in his effort to persuade hard-headed Americans that they, who lead the world in industrial enterprises, are incompetent to manage a governmental enterprise. And I believe that even those who support his cause must condemn his effort to advance it by an unpatriotic and unwarranted assault upon the good names of the Arnericans who represent their country in the Government of the Philippine Islands. 1ANILA, August 1, 1913. '\ - ' APPENDIX A COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION UNDER ACT No. 1989 AND UNDER LETTER OF ADVICE OF GOVERNOR-GENERAL FOR 1911 Act 1989. a Commission ------------- --- - ----- $63,600 Assembly -..-.. --- — -------—. --- —-- 225,000 Private secretaries.-. --- —------- ----------------- 4, 500 Executive --- ------------ --------- 82,000 Executive Bureau. ---- ------------------ 265,000 Bureau of Audits -------------—........... --- 178,500 Bureau of Civil Service --- -----— 38,500 Bureau of Health ---- --— 708,500 Bureau of Lands ----- -------- - 324,000 Bureau of Science | --- —. --- —- ----------—. ---- 170,000 Bureau of Forestry ------------------------- 71, 500 Quarantine Service ------------------- —.. —... ---___ —_ 62,500 Weather Bureau ------------------------- - 65,950 Philippine Constabulary ---------------------- 1,225,000 Bureau of Public Works ----------- 7 --- —-—, _ 143,000 Bureau of Navigation -----... --- —---—. ---- - 641,500 Bureau of Posts --- —--- -------------------- -.330,000 Coast and Geodetic Survey -----. --- —------------- 100,000 Bureau of Labor --------------------------- 22, 000 Consulting Architect — -------—. --- —, -—. 6,000 Supervising Railway Expert ----------- -------- 18, 000 Bureau of Justice --------------------------- ------------ 70,000 Bureau of Customs ------------------— 380,000 Bureau of Internal Revenue -----—. --- —------- 286,000 Bureau of the Treasury -- -- --- — 61,500 Bureau of Education ----- --------------- 1, 805,000 Bureau of Agriculture ---------------- — 425,000 Philippine Medical School-.. --- —-. ---- 87,500 Bureau of Prisons ------ -------- 298, 339 Philippine Library -----—. ---- 28,750 The Judiciary -...... --- —---— _-....i448,000 Provincial government of Mindoro ----------—. ----i 16,700 Provincial government of Palawan - -—. 12,055 Provincial government of Batanes --- —----------- f 7,500 Damages, etc --- —----------- ------- ----------- 10,000 Provincial government of Samar --------—._ --- —----... ----------- General purposes ----- ------------—. --—. —__. 25,000 Provincial government of Cavite --- —-------------------- 2,500 Rate Regulation Board -------------------------------- 2,500 Legal services —, ---- - --------------- 2,500 Letter of eter o Differences. advice. $63, 600 -- -----— I ------------ 225,000 -—. --- —--- ----------- 1,500 ---- |- $3,000 86,000 $4,000 ---265,000 --- ---- 178,500 —.. ---. 38,500 ---- 708,500 --324,000 - ---- -- 170,000 71, 500 - ------ ------------ 71,500 62, 500 ---- --------- 65, 950 ---------- 1,225,000 --- ------------ 143,000 ------ 641,500 -- 140,000 ----------- ------------ 330,000 -------- 100,000 ------------ 100,000 -—::J —i-i ---iii 28,500 6,500 ---- 6,000 -- ------------ 6, 000 17,500 ----— I — 500 70,000 ----------- ------------ 380,000 ----- -------- 286,000 1 ------- --- 91,500.: --- — 1,805,000 ---- ----- 425,000 ---- 87,500 -------- --------- 298,339. ---.. ---- -----—.28,750 --— I --- —--- --- 448,000, --- —------ ------------ 16,700 ---- ------- 12,055 -- --------- 7,500 --- --- ----------- -------- ---- 10,000 3,000 3,000 ------- 25,000 l ---... 2.0. --- —------- ------ 2,500 -- 2,500 ------------------ 2,500 28 5001 --- —------- --— I Total. — —.....-...................... - 8.713,894 8713,894 — 13,500 1 3, 5;.......... NOTE.-A similar table expressed in Philippine currency is published in the Congressional Record of February 15, 1913, at page 3300. a Enacted April 19, 1910-the last general appropriation act of the Philippine Legislature. 27 e APPENDIX B PROGRESS BAROMETER Fiscal year is July 1 to June SO. The Tariff Law of 1909, known as the Payne Bill, was passed August 5, 1909, and went into effect sixty days thereafter. To show the effect of this Act, the statistics from July 1, 1909, are in boldface type. TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES Fiscal year Imports from the Exports to the Total. United States. United States. 1899 - ----- ---- $1,150,613 $3,540, 894 $4,691,507 1900 ---—. — -- ----- - 1,656,469 3,635, 10 5,291,629 1901 ---------------—.. --- -2., --- —---- 2,666,930 2,572,021 5,238,951 1902 - ----- - 4035,243 7,871,743 11,906,986 1903 --- —---------------------------- 3- 3, 944,082 13,863,069 17,807,141 1904 _-_ -------------- -4, ---- --—. 4,843,207 11,102,860 15,946,067 1906 ------------------------------- 5,839,512 15,678,875 21,518,387 1906 --------------------------------- 4,333,917 11,580,569 15,914,486 1907 -------------------—.5, --- —--- ---- 5,155,478 12i 082,364 17,237,842 19086 ---—, --- —-----— 5 ---, --- —----- -- | 5,079,670 10,332,116 15,411,786 1909 --- —--------------- --— _ -------- 4, 693,831 10,154,087 14,847,918 1910 ----- -- --- -- - - -- -------- --- - - - 10,775,301 18,703,083 29,478,384 19-11 --- ---------------------- ----—, --- —----- 19,488,658 16,716,956 26,200,614 1912 ---------------- ----------- -------------- 20,77 0,536 21,619,686 42,290,222 1913 ------------------------------ 2&,387,085 19,849,374 46,236,459 TOTAL TRADE, INCLUDING THAT WITH THE UNITED STATES Imports. Exports. Forein nnage -- - Total cusFiscal year. tom ollecr Fisca Increase Increase toms co|l Increase (+) or Va (+) orr V. decrease Value. decrease Amount. (r +ore -4 Per cent. Per cent. 1 Pr cent. 1899 j --- —-_.. $13,116,567 -------- $14,640,162 ------- $3,106.380 336,550 --- 1900 -- - 20,601,436 + 57 19,821,347 + 35 5,542,289 636,034 + 89 1901 --- —----- 30,276,200 + 47 23,222,348 + 17 8,982,813 987,094 + 55 1902 ---- - 32,029,357 + 6 24,544,858 + 6 8,528,938 1,104,968 + 12 1903-_ --- —-- 32,978,445 + 3 33,150,120 + 35 9,540,706 1,542,200 + 40 1904 ------- 33,221,251 + 1 30,226,127 - 9 8,493,868 1,542,138 -- 1905- - - 30,879,048 - 7 32,355,865 + 7 8,263,444 1,417,396 - 8 1906 --- — ---- 25,799,290 -16 31,918,542 - 1 7,553,206 1,455,065 + 3 1907 --- - 28,786,063 + 12 33,721,767 + 6 8,194,708 1,293,266 -11 1908 ----- --- 30,918,745 + 7 32,829,816 - 3 8,318,020 1,46444 + 13 1909 -- - 27,794.482 -10 31,044,458 -- 5 8,539,098 1,392,333 - 5 1910 --- 37,067,630 +33 39,717,960 +28 8,286,073 1,715,268 -~23 1911 ----- 49,833,722 +34 89,778,629 + 0.2 8,678,810 1,808,308 + 4 1912 ---------- 54,549,980 + 9 50,319,836 +26 9,363,296 1,939,079 + 7 1913 - 56,827,5883 + 8 58,683,326 + 7 8,246,026 1,868,811 - 4 29 30 REPLY TO JONES COASTWISE TONNAGE CLEARED Increase Increase Fiscal year. ToFiscal year. Tonnage Fiscalyear. nnag decrease Per cent. Per cent. 1899 -—, —.-...- 237,852 ---- 1907 - 899, 915 + 16 1900 — ---- - 482,685 +103 1 1908 --- —----- 978.968 + 9 1901 -- --------- 676,37 + 40 1909 --- —--------------- 1,045,075 + 7 1902 --------- - 773,243 + 14 1910 --- —-- --------—. — 1.053,426 + 1 1903 --- —----- 832,438 + 8 1911 ----- ------ 1,303,606 +24 1904 ---------- 905,821 + 9, 1912. --- —------ 1,362,620 + 5 1905 ------------ 840,504 - 7 1913 --- 1325,369 - 1906 ------ ------ 774,032 - 8 1, IMPORTATIONS OF COAL (EQUAL CONSUMPTION VERY NEARLY)a Metric tons Metric tons Fiscal year. (2,205 Fiscal year. (2,205. pounds). pounds). 1899 ------------ ----- 30,812 1907 -. --- —---—. --- —------ 295,684 1900 ---------------------- 87,238 1908 -------------—.. --- ——. 322,928 1901 ---------- ----- 126,732 1909 -294,902 1902 1910-8 —,8 --- —------------- 236,33 1910 ------- 375,518 1903...-2..6.....-... --- —---------—. 268,650 1911 _- ----------- -____ --- 413,735 1904 ----------- ----------------- -— __ 295,716 1912 ----------— _...... 436,687 1905 - -------- - 269,666 1.913 ----------------- - 459,583 1906 --------- - 268,577 a The figures for coal importations are exclusive of the quantities imported from the United States by the Federal Government. These are excluded because they have been for the most part made in large quantities in alternate years, and would therefore, while considerably increasing the average total amounts imported, give a false idea of the rate of increase of the more strictly domestic consumption. PUBLIC WORKS STATISTICS Total mileage of roads in existence. Fiscal year. I First-class Irese. Second- Third-class roads. ncrea class roads. roads. l -I ----— I --- —I I --- — 1907 ---- -- 1908- -- __ — ____ --- —--- ---------- 1909 -_ ------- - - - - - - 1910 ---------------------- -. --- —. 1911 — ------- ------------—. ---.1912 I --- — ------------—. —. --- —-- 1913 ___________ __ --- —-------------- a303 423 609 764 987 1,143 1,303 Per cent. 40 ------------ 40 44 ---- 25 b641 29 664 16 c 1,342.1 14 1,276 b2,074 1,837 1,999 1,952 a b No accurate statistics before 1907 and 1910, respectively. c Increase due to change in definition. REPLY TO JONES 31 PUBLIC WORKS STATISTCS-Continued Total of permanent i Total of permanent bridges and cul- bridges and culFiscal year. verts in existence. Fiscalvert in existence. Number. I Per cent. | Number. Per cent.! 1907 --- —--------- a3,280 ---- 1911 ------------- 4,842 1 1 1908 ----....... 3,631 11 1912 ---... -------- -5,1S1 7 1909 --- —------ 3,865 6 1913 ---- -------- 5,660 9 1910 4,372 13 3, a No accurate statistics before 1907. Total of artesian Total of artesian wells in existence. wells in existence. Fiscal year. ____ Fiscal year. Number. Increase., Number. Increase. Per cent. Per cent. 1905a.. --- —----- 2 _ — I 1910 --- ----------- 322 115 1906 ----------------------- 5 150 1911 --- —-. --- —--- 538 67 1907 -- ------------ 17. 240 1912 --------- ---- 684 27 1908 --------------- 26 53 1913 --- —--------- 830; 21 1909 ------------- 150 477 a First year of artesian-well work. Light Light- | Light I LightFiscal year. houses Fiscal year. houses Fiscal year. houses in opera- i o in operation. tion. tion. I 1902 -- ------ 57 1906 --- ------- 105 i 1910 --- -------- I 143 1903 ----------- 66 1907 --------- 117 1911 -------------- 142 1904 -—. --- — 76 1908 --------- 129 1912. --- —. 145 1905 --- —--- 89 i 1909 -- -----—. 139 1913 ---. --- —------- 146 INTERNAL-REVENUE STATISTICS Total Total Increase Fiscal year. colltons. Increase. Fiscal year. collectons () or de crease (-). Per cent. Per cent. 1906 ---- ---- $4,434.364 ----- 1910 -------- $,160,810 +22 1907- - 4,729,515 7i 1911 --------------- 7,92,787 +11 1908 ---------------- 6, 542, 022 1 1 912 ----------- 8,389.929 9 6 1909 --------- 5,871,267 6 1913 --------- 9,035,922 + 8 a First year for which statistics are available. 32 REPLY TO JONES INTERNAL-REVENUE STATISTICS-Continued - Receipts Amounts of Increase from business or Fiscal year. percentage on which decrease tax on percentage business. tax is collected. Per cent. 1906................ --- —-----—.......-...- $666,996 $200,098,983 ------- 1907 ------------------—. --- —--- 677,847 203,354,298 + 2 1908 - ------------------------ 7-. ----- - 643,707 A 193,112,160 - 5 1909 ----- ------------- 631,877 189,563,361 -- 1910 -- ----------- -- 759,718 227,915,678 - +20 1911 -------------------------------- -- -- ---- 885,804 265,741,443 +17 1912 --------------- ----------------- 951,775 285,582,500 + 7 1913 ------------------ 1,119,476 885,842,800 +18 Cigars manufactured. c Number of Fiscal year. Increase cigarettes manuNumber. (d) or factured. decrease (-). Per cent. 1906 --- —----- --------—.. 168, 526,079 ----— 3,- 3, 530,101,594 1907 -- ------------------------ - -- 197,248,119 + 17 3,668,349,387 1908-........-7-.. --- —--—. - 198, 754, 787 + 1 3, 846, 690,706 1909 --- -------------— 9........ —..... 204, 649, 901 + 3 4,175, 635, 537 1910-....................... 285,561,828 +89 4,178,507,249 1911 ----- ------. 228,251,291 -20 4,094,028,988 1912 ------------------------ 284,918,845 +25 4,404,929,808 1913 ----------—.... 805,651,429 + 7 4,500,771,926 - BANKING Increase Increase Total resourcotal res rources I+ree Fiscal year. of commercial decrease Fiscal year. of commercial rease banks. banks. d e. i. Per cent. Per cent. 1906 --- ------ $15,351, 690 ---- 1910 --- —------ $22,856,455 +26 1907 ----- ----—...... 17,054,358 +11 1911 -24, --- —-. --- — 24,557,697 + 7 1908. ---. --- ------- 17,454,214 +2 1912-85 ---88 ----2 --- 85,885,728 +46 1909 —1 ---.3, --- —-- 18,138,425 + 4 1913 ---- --- 81,210,177 -13 -On March 31, 1913. REPLY TO JONES POST-OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH STATISTICS i. 33 Money orders sold. Telegraph receipts. Fiscalyear. Increase POets8e Increase Amount. Amount. (A) o Amu ecreae decrease (-). I (-). Per cent. 1900. --- —-----------------------— | $1,526, 10 —! 117,848 i 1901 -.. -... --- —. --- —---- --—., 1,514, 35 - 1 122, 833. --- —1902 ------ --- 1,854, $27 + 22 126,375 - 1903 --- —---------------- -- 2, 842, 87 +53 132,445 -------- ---- ---- -------------------------,10, 0 i - 9 121, 714 ---------- 1904 --- —-------— 3,10206 +9 121,714! ------- ------ 1905 --- — -- - ----- 3,444, 53 + 11 121,648 ------ --------------- 1906 ------------------ 3,687,127 +- 7 198,5831 a$56,351 ---1907 ------- -- ---- 3,229,446 -12 198,546 118,360 +110 1908 ------- -- -------- 3,645, 123 13 220.306 136,138 +15 1909 ----- --— 4.008, 78 +1- 245,482 139,208 _+ 2 1910 ------------- ---------- 4,890,805 +22 282,317 168,402 +21 1911 ---------- - 6,132,52 +25 313,549 184,555 9 1912 ----- ------------------ 7,425,113 +21 349,407 236;679 +28 1913 ---------------------------------------- 8,272,88 +11 380,942 28^,305 + 20 ~First year for which statistics are available. NUMBER OF MIIES OF COAST SURVEYED Fiscal year; Miles. Fiscal year. Miles. 1902- 5......- 576 199 -....7..... 7,126 1903 -------------------------- 1,208 1910 — |. ---. —. -- ----—... —. - 8,763 9 1904- 1,921 191 --------- 9,992 i 19054 --- ------------------- ------ 415 192 11,308 1906. --- ----------------- ----- 3,041 1913-.. - --------..8 --- —------ -. 11,748 1907 --- —- ---------------,,992 im --------------------------------------- ~2,415 in19e ----------------------------------- 11,308 1907.-4,586 I On January L 1913; increase of six months only. 34 REPLY TO JONES RAILROAD STATISTICS Total Earning of Earnings of Manila Fsl mileage Philippine onres Calendar Railway Co. Fr opera- Railway Co., year.. toun.. amot..Amount. Increase. i 1907 a -------------- 122 ----—.- 1907 $825.823 ---- 1908 ------------------------ 221. --- —----------- 1908 961,936 16 1909 -------------- 290 b$74, 815 --- -- 1909 1,023,812 6 1910 ------------- 400 118,646 59 1910 1,223,794 21 1911 -------------- 455 142,888 20 1911 1,919,244 56 I 1912 --------------------------------- 599 386,970 171 1912 2,304,436 20 1913 ---------------- c611] (d) ---~ Only railroad line in operation prior to 1907 was 122 miles of the main line of the Manila Railroad Company. b First year of operation. c On February 1, 1913; increase of six months only. d The Philippine Railway Company has recently changed its accounting from the basis of the Government fiscal yea- (beginning July 1) to a calendar-year basis. Figures are not, therefore, available for a complete twelve months subsequent to June 30, 1912. The figure for the first year on the new basis (ending December 31, 1912, and duplicating part of the last amount given above) is $376,512. PUBLIC-HEALTH STATISTICS Smallpox. In Manila. In the provinces. Calendar year. Deaths I Cholera. Cholera. from Cases. Deaths. diar- - rhSeSal Cases. Deaths. Cases. Deaths. diseases.aC 1903 --- —-------------- --- 16 2,864 910 810 39.555 | 27,927 1904 ----------------- 73 32 4,998 7 8 120 76 1905 --------------------- -------------- 29 6 4,509 225 226 2,337 1,102 1906 -------------- 31 5 3, 858 848 744 13,423 8,649 1907 ----------------------------------- 75 1 3,003 223 194 744 553 1908 - ------------ ----- 213 76 3,433 1,186 819 29,243 18,350 1909-. --- —------------ _ ------- 243 71 b3,379 284 227 9,860 6,658 1910 --------------- 5 0 c 1,672 310 227 9,135 6,425 1911 ------------------------------- 0 0 c 1, 253 0 0 226 182 1912 -- ------------- 0 0 d 1i, 858 0 0 49 42 1913 (to May 1) --------- 0 0 ----—. --- 0 0 0 a For fiscal years. b Use of water begun. furnished by new system, from uninhabited watershed. e Water from uninhabited watershed, furnished by new system, in use entire year. d Water supply from new system interrupted for three and one-half months, and recourse had to water from inhabited watershed, furnished by old system. REPLY TO JONES EDUCATION STATISTICS 35 |... Average enrollment in public. - schools.a Fiscal year. I i -:~ 1903 ____________. --- —----—. —. ---- ---—.__ 1904 ----------— _..__._______ _ --- —— _____ 1905 --- — ---- -----------------------------— _ 1906 -----------------------------—. ----.. ---- - 1907 ______________. --- —----— _.-__. --- —-_ 1908 _._____ --- —------------------ 1909_ — ----—. --- —------------- 1910 ------------ --------------------- 1910 ------ 1911 _ _.-. -.....__ _ __. 1912 _ _____________ --- —----—.__ --- — 1913 — _ -____. --- —. --- —. —. -. — 1914e_ --- — ______ __.... — __ ----__.....___ b 140, 000 b 200, 000 b 300, 000 b 340,000 346,245 339,243 405,478 427,165 446,889 395,075 329,000 b 430,000 Number of permanent schoolhouses. Number of public schools. Erected or ' irecon- In use. structed. b2,000 -- -. ----- 2,285! -------------- 2,864 ------— _ -_ —_ — ------ — _ 3,263 1-____ ---_ c 150 to 180 3,687 d 30 180 3,932' — 30 210 4,424 50 260 4,531 30 290 4,404 100 390 3,685 135 525 2,934 112 637 4,000!, _._. --- —-— __. —..-_-_ __i a Enrollment statistics are for the school year June 10 to March 31. b Estimated. c Spanish buildings still in use. d Including those constructed prior to 1907. e Estimated; 1, 000 new schools were opened in June, 1913, by order of Governor Forbes. STREET RAILROAD AND LIGHTING IN MANLA Gross earnings from Passengers carried by i street railway. Gross power. a Gross Calendar year. earnings Increase'j of streetIncrease ( +)or!railway. () or Number. i Amount. decrease' decrease! (-)~ Pecen Per cent. P. 1906b --------------------- 10,527,902 ---— _ $500, 826 -1908,_,- __ --- —---- ------------ _ — 1907 - -11,573,641 + 10 530,110 $391,222.' 22 -99 -------------— _ --- —--- --- --------------- ----- 1908 ---------- -------- 13, 848, 025 + 20 610, 871 468,903 1 20 1909 --- —-- -- -------- 13,409,673 - 3 560 i 509,746 -r 9 1910 -------------------- 17,037,411 +27 673,587 579,345 +14 1911 ------ -- ------- 18,621,S75 + 9 724,993 661,487 +14 1912 -------- -------- 20,059,055 + 8 809,247 772,375 +1 1913 (attherateof) -- ---- 20,178,423 +.5 823,118 822,228 + 6 a Two companies in the fieldc prior to 1907; statistics not complete. b First year of operation. 36 REPLY TO JONES POSTAL SAVINGS BANK Depositors in Total amount due the Postal Savings depositors at close Bank. of year. Fiscal year. Number. Increase.Amount. Increase. Per cent. Percent. 1907 a. —............................................ 2,331 --- $ 254,731 ---- 1908 ----... --- —. -—, — - 5,389 131 15,997 - 102 1909 --------—. ----. --- —---------— 1 8,782 63 724,479 40 19 -,101,102 49 889,128 16 1911 — _,_ - -. --- —- ------. ---.....! 28,804 120 1,049,787 25 1912 --- —-------------- ------ 85,802 24 1,194,493 14 1913 ---- -------------- ---..........-. 89,909 11 1,240,241 4 aFirst year of operation. APPENDIX C COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR 1912 Surplus beginning of fiscal year: Cash available for appropriation................................ $223,666.19 Cash appropriated but unreleased.............................. 296,750.00 - $520,416.19 Appropriated from revenues and available.................................. 4,963,465.67 Supplies purchased from revenue and available............................. 2,755,431.07 Cash appropriated from bond funnd.................................................... 350,743.54 8,590,056.47 Supplies brought into appropriated surplus..................................................... Revenues and receipts.: Customs.................................... 8,908,123.64 Internal revenues......................................................... 4,792,710.66 All other receipts......................................................... 1,986,002.39 Sale of bonds................................................................................... 15,623,386.69................... 24,213,893.16 Total available............................................. Expenditures: Current expenses........................... Fixed charges.......................... Public works from revenues......................... Public works from bond fund............... Other capital expenditures........................... Supplies dropped and transferred to equipment Surplus, June 30, consisting of 9,528,813.64 1,389,931.47 3,974,671.17 210,964.47........................ - 15,104,380.75........................ 626,492.60 Cash available for appropriation............................. 702,344.98 Cash appropriated but unreleased............................ 840,519.44 -- 1,542,864.42 Appropriated from revenue and available.............................. 4,143,032.25 -Supplies purchased from revenue and available.............................. 2,657,344.03 Cash appropriated from bond fund..................................... 139,779.06 8,483,019.76 37 38 REPLY TO JONES EXTRACT FROM SPEECH OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL TO THE MANILA MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION, JULY, 1913 "Our annual revenues, speaking now only of the Insular Government, came last year to twenty-seven million pesos. We spent on what are known as current expenses of the Insular Government about eighteen million pesos. The fixed charges, which are those things which we cannot very well touch, like sinking funds, interest on bonded debts, and the Insular Government share of the city of Manila and certain other similar expenses, came to about two and a half million pesos. Thus our expenses and charges reach the sum of twenty and a half million pesos, leaving a balance which can be used for extraordinary expenses or for public works of six and a half million pesos. As public works are optional and as the amount allotted for extraordinary expenses may be increased or diminished according to revenues, it will be readily seen that our expenditures for these purposes are adjusted according as our receipts come in. "It has been the policy of the Government to maintain a reasonable reserve of unappropriated moneys to meet any extraordinary situation such as a sudden and unexpected reduction of revenues, or any unexpected and unusual expense such as might be incurred by reason of pestilence, war, or some other public disaster. This reserve has ranged from half a million to four million pesos, and my policy has been to have it in the neighborhood of the latter figure." NOTE.-The peso is equal in value to a half dollar. 0 i