Mr. Day to Mr. Hay.
In order to finish copying answer to Spanish paper on the Philippine Islands, we asked postponement of meeting yesterday from 2 to 4 o’clock p.m. Spanish Commissioners replied that they had engagement later in the afternoon and suggested postponement till 2 to-day. We met accordingly this afternoon, and presented answer. We repel Spanish assumption that we base our demands as to Philippine Islands on specific concessions in the protocol, as in the case of Cuba and Puerto Rico, but we maintain that by third article we reserved and secured full and absolute right to make demands in future, and that our present demands are justified by and are included in the terms of the protocol. We also deny that provisions of the protocol can be qualified or limited by anything in Spanish notes prior to its signature. We show by review of the negotiations and of interviews at Executive Mansion that protocol was made only because Spanish response of August 7 was unacceptable. We quote to same effect from French Yellow Book telegram of Mr. Cambon transmitting draft of protocol and saying United States had decided to state precisely (préciser) therein the terms on which negotiations for peace would be undertaken. We quote in full note of Secretary of State to Cambon of August 10, and show that our interpretation is justified by written correspondence, conversations at Executive Mansion, and terms of protocol. We go over this ground at length. We express surprise at apparent renewal of Cuban debt question so soon after it was waived. We quote their language as to not wishing to have to refer to this again, and as to not permitting any discussion of certain phases of the question, characterizing this as language unusual in diplomacy unless to convey a deliberate ultimatum. We then inquire again as to final intentions of Spanish Commissioners upon this subject. We call attention to admitted fact that considerable part of proceeds Cuban loans was expended in prosecuting war against United States, and inquire if they mean to be understood as refusing to permit any consideration of this expenditure.
We then take up the question of capitulation of Manila and maintain that our powers as occupant under the protocol are the same in all respects as to government and administration as under capitulation. In closing we refer to another aspect of capture of Manila. Noting that Spanish Commissioners complain of it as occurring a few hours after signature of protocol, we ask if just and impartial mind might [Page 944] not consider why not captured before—namely through humane desire to save city and Spanish residents from dreaded vengeance of insurgents—and suggest that men to whom that humane delay was due, General Merritt and Admiral Dewey, were entitled to better treatment than their insinuation of needless slaughter and conscious violation of protocol.
Our answer covered 50 typewritten pages. Spanish Commissioners asked till Saturday to study it and reserved right to ask, if necessary, for more time. At this the next meeting we may need to outline definite and final propositions on whole question of Philippine Islands, including possible cash payments.