Mr. Day to Mr. Hay.
Spanish Commissioners, in paper presented yesterday, maintain that demand for whole Philippine Islands violates protocol, which by its terms contemplated only provisional occupation Manila and did not impair Spanish sovereignty over group. They cite circular French minister for foreign affairs of August last announcing to French ambassadors in Europe the signature of protocol and saying our demand Philippine Islands was for provisional occupation of Manila by the American forces; also clause of capitulation Manila providing for return of arms to Spanish forces on evacuation of city. They also invoke our argument that Spain is now precluded from bringing forward Cuban debt because she failed to mention it during the negotiation of protocol. They quote interviews between the President and Cambon to show that former did not intend to demand cession group, but agreed that Philippine Islands question should be subject of negotiation at Paris, and particularly his declaration that clause in protocol did not decide anything against either Government; also refer to answer in Spanish note of August 7 to demand as to Philippine Islands as showing their Government’s understanding thereof, and argue that United States by omitting to deny admitted correctness of that understanding. They further maintain that nothing has occurred since signing of protocol to justify United States in enlarging demands. As to our proposal to assume debts for pacific improvements, they say archipelago burdened with debt 400,000,000 pesetas, or $40,000,000, secured by mortgages on revenues Manila custom-house, vesting in third parties of various nationalities rights which do not belong to Spain. They declare and say that they hope there will be no necessity to repeat that Spain can not and ought not, since respect for others forbids it, to agree in any treaty to anything implying impairment or suppression or even disregard of private rights of others against the will of their legitimate and special proprietors. They say there are besides unsecured colonial debts. These likewise forbid acceptance of American proposal, which involves revision of legitimate acts of internal sovereignty, the debt having been lawfully contracted. Any inquiry whether proceeds were judiciously invested is inadmissible on grounds of national self-respect or as affecting obligation of debt.
Spanish paper then discusses armistice, maintains ineffectiveness capitulation of Manila, and holds acts of military administration unlawful, such as taking public funds, collecting revenues, and controlling courts and police, and specifically complains of alleged release on September 21 of thirteen prisoners in jail for common crimes, which it describes as an unheard-of act. On points of law they cite article 140 of our instructions to armies in field, Halleck’s International Law, and Field’s Code, and say that, according to authorities and the protocol, treaty of peace should provide for immediate delivery of Manila to Spain, immediate release of garrison, return to Spanish Government of all funds and public property taken by American army since its occupation of place, and all taxes collected, and indemnification of Spain for damages occasioned by detentions Spanish troops resulting in spread of Tagalo insurrection and involving ill-treatment of Spanish prisoners. In conclusion, Spanish Commissioners [Page 943] invite American Commissioners to present a proposition in accordance with articles 3 and 6 of the protocol and covering obligations of United States growing out of acts of war committed after signing of protocol in seizing Manila and doing of things in excess of rights under article 3. We have word of French minister for foreign affairs that statement in his circular was oversight and will be immediately corrected. We are preparing reply to Spanish paper to be presented at next joint meeting on Tuesday afternoon.