to present, in accordance with the stipulations of Articles III and VI of the Protocol, a proposition concerning the control, disposition and government of the Philippine Archipelago and concerning the obliga tion which, as has just been said, it is the duty of the United States to contract because of the acts of war committed by its troops after the signing of the Protocol in forcibly seizing the city of Manila and performing acts beyond the scope of the only rights the United States could exercise in that city, its bay and harbor, pursuant to the stipulations of the said Article II of the Protocol.

them at the moment definitely to state what time would be needed for a reply; and they proposed either to advise the American Commissioners later in the day when the Commission might meet again, or at once to designate a day with out prejudice to asking for a postponement, should it be necessary and should the nature of the document require it.

The American Commissioners preferring the latter course, the conference was adjourned till Saturday the 12th of November at two o'clock, p. m., with the understand ing that the Spanish Commissioners might if necessary ask for a postponement.

WILLIAM R. DAY
CUSHMAN K. DAVIS
WM P FRYE

GEO. GRAY

WHITELAW REID.

JOHN B. MOORE.

posible el saber á punto fijo el tiempo que se necesitaría para contestarla, proponían, ya seadar aviso á la Comisión Americana aquella noche misma, del día en que podía reunirse la Comisión, ya sea fijar en aquel momento un día sin per juicio de pedir un aplazamiento si fuese necesario y resultase de la naturaleza del documento.

Los Comisarios Americanos habiendo dado la preferencia á la segunda de estas proposiciones, se aplazó la conferencia hasta el sábado 12 del corriente á las dos P. M. en la inteligencia de que los Comisarios Españoles tendrían la facultad de pedir un aplazamiento si lo considerasen necesario.

E. MONTERO Ríos
B DE ABARZUZA

J. DE GARNICA

WR DE VILLA URRUTIA
RAFAEL CERERO

EMILO DE OJEDA

ANNEX TO PROTOCOL No. 13.

ANSWER OF THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS TO THE PROPOSITION OF THE SPANISH COMMISSIONERS OF NOVEMBER 3, 1898.

The American Commissioners, replying to the Spanish proposition of the 4th instant, will proceed at once to the examination of the grounds on which the Spanish Commissioners endeavor to justify their expression of surprise at the American proposals of the 31st of October on the subject of the Philippines.

The Spanish argument sets out with the erroneous assumption that the United States bases its demands in respect of the Philippines upon the terms of the Protocol in the same sense as it bases its demands in regard to Cuba and Porto Rico upon the terms of the same instrument; and, proceeding upon this assumption, it finds in the position of the United States on the two subjects an inconsistency. The United States, it declares, adhered, in respect of Cuba and Porto Rico, to the "letter" of the Protocol, while in the case of the Philippines, it has presented a demand "not included in or covered by the articles" of that agreement.

The American Commissioners are not disturbed by this charge of inconsistency, since they deem it obviously groundless. They based their demands in regard to Cuba and Porto Rico upon the precise terms of the Protocol, because it was in those very terms that the United States had made its demands and Spain had conceded them, by promising to "relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to

Cuba", and to "cede" to the United States Porto Rico and certain other islands. The United States, in insisting upon the words of the Protocol on these subjects, merely asked that the precise concessions of Spain be made good.

In the case of the Philippines, the United States, except as to the bay, city, and harbor of Manila, confined itself to demanding that the subject should be left in the widest and fullest sense for future negotiations. While it did not, with the exception referred to, demand specific concessions, it reserved and secured the right to demand them. Its position, therefore, is, not that its present demands in respect of the Philippines were specifically set out in the Protocol, but that they are justified by and included in the right which it therein expressly reserved and secured to make demands in the future.

Putting aside, however, the erroneous assumption of which notice. has just been taken, it appears that the Spanish Commissioners differ with the American Commissioners as to the scope and meaning of the third article of the Protocol signed by the representatives of the two Governments at Washington on the 12th of August, 1898. This article is as follows:

"ARTICLE 3.-The United States will occupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila, pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace, which shall determine the control, disposition and government of the Philippines."

The Spanish Commissioners contend that in the negotiation and settlement of a treaty under this article nothing can be demanded by the United States which impairs the sovereignty of Spain over the islands, and that a fair construction of the terms of the article can require only such changes in the government of the islands, reforms in administration and kindred changes, as do not affect ultimate Spanish sovereignty.

It is the contention on the part of the United States that this article leaves to the determination of the treaty of peace the entire subject of the future government and sovereignty of the Philippines necessarily embraced in the terms used in the Protocol.

The Spanish Commissioners support their contention upon two grounds: First, that the meaning of the words is not such as to include the sovereignty of Spain in the Philippines. Second, that the history of the negotiations, and the reservations made by Spain in the course thereof, preclude the United States from making its claim.

It is a principle of law no less applicable to international differences than to private controversies that where the result of negotiations has been embodied in a written compact, the terms of such agreement shall settle the rights of the parties. The reasons upon which this doctrine rests are too well known to need recapitulation here. While the United States might well rest its case upon a construction of the terms used, it has no disposition to avoid the fullest examination and the most searching scrutiny of the negotiations which preceded the making of the Protocol, as they but serve to make clear the purpose of the parties to leave to the treaty now in process of negotiation the fullest opportunity to dispose of the government and sovereignty of the Philippine Islands in such a manner as might be recorded in the treaty.

The two Governments being at war, negotiations with a view of obtaining a treaty of peace were opened by the Government of Spain through the Minister of State addressing to the President of the United States, in the name of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen Regent, a note dated the 22nd of July, 1898, which it is not necessary

to set out in full here. It is sufficient to say that therein the President of the United States is asked to name the terms upon which peace may be had between the two countries. This note was presented to the President of the United States on the 26th day of July, 1898, by Mr. Cambon, Ambassador of the French Republic at Washington, authorized to make the application, and represent the Spanish Government in the subsequent negotiations which led up to the execution of the Protocol. At that meeting the President received the note of July 22 from the Spanish Government and advised Mr. Cambon that after consultation with his Cabinet he would prepare an answer which could be transmitted to the Spanish Government. On July 30, following, the terms of peace having been carefully considered and agreed upon by the President and his Cabinet, the President received Mr. Cambon at the Executive Mansion in Washington, at which meeting were also present Mr. Thiébaut, Secretary of the French Embassy in Washington, and the then Secretary of State of the United States. The answer of the President to the communication of the Spanish Government, dated July 30, 1898, was then read to Mr. Cambon. This note was in the exact form in which it was afterwards signed and delivered to Mr. Cambon to be sent to the Spanish Government, with a single exception. After some discussion of the terms of the note as to Cuba, and Porto Rico and other West Indian islands, Mr. Cambon said he did not know what the Spanish Government would desire as to the Philippines, and no matter what the note might say as to the Commission, the Spanish Government would regard the purpose of the United States as being fixed to acquire not only Cuba and Porto Rico, but the Philippines as well. The President said that as to the Philippines the note expressed the purposes of this Government, and their final disposition would depend upon the treaty to be negotiated by the Commissioners and ratified by the interested Governments.

After further discussion, in which the President reiterated that the treaty must determine the fate of the Philippines, and the note of the President on that subject reading then as now with the single exception that the word "possession" was then in Article III, so that it read "control, possession and government of the Philippines", where it now reads "control, disposition and government of the Philippines" Mr. Cambon said that the word "possession" translated into Spanish in such a way as to be regarded as of a severe and threatening nature, and suggested a change in that word. He suggested the word "condition". The President declined to change the word except for a word of similar import or meaning. The word "disposition" being suggested, after considerable talk the President consented that that word, not changing the meaning, being indeed a broader one and including possession, might be substituted. Thereupon the note at the close of the interview of July 30, in exactly the form it was originally cast with the single change of the word "disposition" for "possession", was delivered to Mr. Cambon to be communicated to the Spanish Government.

On Wednesday, August 3, in the afternoon, Mr. Cambon having intimated a desire for a further interview with the President, another meeting between the same persons was held at the Executive Mansion. Mr. Cambon said the Spanish Government had received the answer of the President, and that it was regarded by Spain as very severe. After asking a modification as to Porto Rico, to which the President promptly answered that he could not consent, Mr. Cambon said there was a disposition to believe in Spain that the United States intended to take the Philippine group; that the Spanish Government appreciated that

reforms were necessary in the government; that American privileges should be granted; but that Spanish sovereignty should not be interfered with was a matter which Spain would insist upon. The Presi dent answered that the question of Cuba, Porto Rico and other West India islands, and the Ladrones, admitted of no negotiation; that the disposition of the Philippine Islands, as he had already said to Mr. Cambon, must depend upon the treaty which might be negotiated, and that he could not make any change in the terms theretofore submitted. Mr. Cambon called attention to the wording of the note as to the possession of the city, bay and harbor of Manila to be retained during the pendency of the treaty, and asked what was to be done with them afterwards. The President said that must depend upon the terms of the treaty.

This is the same interview alluded to in the memorandum of the Spanish Commissioners as having occurred on the 4th of August. It in fact occurred on the afternoon of August 3, the difference in date arising from the fact, no doubt, that it was reported on the 4th of August. This can make but little difference, as there was but one interview at that time.

In reporting the conversations, and comparing the memoranda made by Mr. Cambon with those made by the representative of the American Government then present, it must be borne in mind that Mr. Cambon did not speak or understand English, but communicated with the President through the medium of an interpreter, his Secretary, and that neither of the American representatives understood or spoke the French language. Making this allowance, it is perfectly apparent that the American President, even in the version reported and transcribed in the memorandum of the Spanish Commission, at all times maintained that the treaty of peace should determine the control, disposition and government of the Philippines. The President did say that the Philippine question was the only one left open for negotiation and settlement in the treaty. It is undoubtedly true that it was not then fully settled in his own mind as to what disposition should be made of the Philippines. Had it been, there would have been nothing to leave to negotiation and settlement in the treaty. It was the purpose of the President in everything written and spoken to leave to the negotiators of the treaty the most ample freedom with reference to the Philippines, and to settle, if their negotiations should result in an agreement, the control, disposition and government of those islands in the treaty of peace. When Mr. Cambon spoke of Spain's purpose to retain sovereignty over those islands, the President did say he wanted it clearly understood that no ambiguity should remain upon that point, but that the whole matter should be decided as set forth in the treaty of peace, which should determine the control, disposition and government of the Philippine Islands. He certainly did not use the word "intervention" nor limit the subject of negotiation to "advantages" in the Philippines; nor can it be claimed that any report was made to the Spanish Government of the precise English words used by the Presi dent. In the same paragraph quoted in the memorandum of the Spanish Commission in which it is said he used the words above quoted, it is added that the President also said the negotiators should decide upon the "intervention" (contrôle), disposition and government of the Philippine Islands. Even this version of the conversation is ample proof that the President showed no uncertainty as to the scope and meaning of the terms used. He did say in substance, in reply to the inquiry of Mr. Cambon as to whether the United States had pre