ADAMS TO ROOSEVELT, JULY 23, 1902

APPENDIX A.

LAKE GEORGE, N. Y., July 23, 1902.

Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
President of the United States.

SIR: On the 16th of April last the Secretary of War, under your personal order, issued "memorandum" of instructions sent to General Chaffee relating to outrages and acts of torture alleged to have been perpetrated in the Philippines. Shortly after, a meeting of persons interested therein was held in New York. At this meeting we were appointed a committee "to take all necessary steps to effect the full disclosure of the facts connected with processes and executions in the course of military operations in the Philippine Islands." The duty thus imposed has since engaged our attention, and in the performance thereof we have investigated many cases of alleged outrage, besides otherwise seeking to inform ourselves in relation thereto.

In this connection we now desire to express the gratification afforded us by your "review " of the 14th instant, as Commander in Chief, of the findings of the court-martial in the case of Gen. J. H. Smith. Taken in connection with the previous memorandum of April 15, that review will, provided it be followed by corresponding general action, in our opinion do much toward the reestablishment of the national prestige and the restoration of the morale of the Army. At this time, therefore, it is of more than a national—it is distinctly of international service; for, brought into new relations with remote and, possibly, less developed races, it is manifestly above all desirable that the United States should aim to elevate others to a higher standard rather than itself sink to a lower. Especially opportune, in our judgment, is your very commendable reminder to officers in high and responsible positions that in a warfare with national dependents, such as that recently waged by us in the East, it behooves all such officers to be "peculiarly careful in their bearing and conduct so as to keep a moral check over any acts of an improper character by their subordinates." The level here reached is lofty, and in healthy contrast with that spirit, far too prevalent, which seeks excuse, if not justification, for the excesses of the present in every instance of inhumanity which can possibly be exhumed either from colonial history otherwise happily forgotten or from the regrettable records of our Indian warfare.

While thus, however, expressing our sense of obligation, we wish most respectfully to call your attention to certain conclusions which we have in the course of our own inquiries found ourselves compelled to reach. These conclusions, we are not unaware, may be somewhat at variance with those reached by you; none the less, in stating them our desire is to contribute, if in our power so to do, toward the more complete realization of the ends set forth in the memorandum to General Chaffee of April 15.

Coming directly to the point, and speaking historically, our investigations have led us to conclude that the demoralization of the officers and soldiers of our Army in the Philippines, including all branches of the service and all grades of rank, was far more general, as well ae pronounced, than might be inferred from your review of the court-martial findings in the case of General Smith. The essential facts charged in this case, we believe we have reason to say, were rather notorious than exceptional. Demoralizing influences, very prejudicial to any high standard of military morale, were, under the circumstances, inevitable. This led to lamentable results, calling for the firm hand and stern correction found, and most fortunately applied, in your orders of April 15 and July 14. For that application, while the country is under great obligation to you, the Army is, in our estimate, under obligation still greater.

In the Chaffee memorandum of April 15 is this language: "The fact that any such acts of cruelty and barbarity appear to have been done indicates the necessity of a most thorough, searching, and exhaustive investigation, and you will spare no effort to uncover every case which may have occurred, and bring the offenders to justice." These words, and the inquiries and courts-martial instituted in obedience thereto, unquestionably had a most clarifying effect. Their influence was immediate, great, and beneficent. Meanwhile we would respectfully submit that the good of the Army and the future of our Eastern dependencies demand that

COURTS-MARTIAL IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 93

investigation should not stop at this point or with results already reached. The inquiries we, as a committee, have made, necessarily imperfect, have yet been sufficient to satisfy us that General Smith and Major Waller were not the sole culprits; nor should they suffice in the character of scapegoats. In your "review" of July 14 you say that these cases were exceptional. Your means of information on this point should unquestionably be infinitely better than ours, for you have access to the files of the War Department; we have not. Meanwhile, it is always to be borne in mind that one side only of this painful story has been heard, and that side only in part.

The testimony of representative Filipinos has been jealously and systematically suppressed. Judicial and impartial examination on the spot has been denied or pronounced impracticable. From the very nature of things armies and army organizations are much the same everywhere, and a recent foreign experience, still very fresh in public memory, forcibly suggests what may be expected from military tribunals and investigations when the esprit de corps is enlisted or "the honor of the army" is thought to be involved. In the present case occasionally, and by accident merely, have fragments of information come to general knowledge—broken glimpses only have been permitted to reach the public eye. Certain facts have been elicited in the proceedings before the Senate Philippine Committee, or through the imperfect reports of evidence given in the more notorious of the courts-martial proceedinge, but these, though very suggestive, are far from complete, much less exhaustive. To our minds they indicate unmistakably a condition of great and general demoralization. Of this the findings of the courts-martial referred to afford a conclusive evidence, as also do the published orders of commanding officers and the reports of provincial governors. A general, for instance, high in command permits himself to say, "I will burn everything that stands and kill everything that lives in Batangas to have peace."

If nothing else, this is suggestive of another memorable utterance of the same nature—an utterance with which the name of Warsaw is mournfully associated. As eighteen centuries ago, so now, "Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." Another general, a degree only less high in grade, is on record as declaring in language, not classic certainly, but though less terse, equally forcible with that just quoted, By the Great Horn Spoon, I will make them want peace and want it badly!" As the not unnatural result of military operations so inspired an official report indicates that out of a total population in a single district of 300,000 not less than 100,000 perished. Is this "assimilation," we would ask, "benevolent" in character? In the case of Samar and the now familiar order there to burn everything and kill "all over ten," the Secretary of War asserts that owing "to the good sense and self-restraint of General Smith's subordinates and their regard for the laws of war, his intemperate and unjustifiable instructions were not followed." We are not aware that any reliable statistics on this head are generally accessible, but the evidence is that Samar, with its population of 200,000 Christian beings, was not exempt from the results usual in cases where war, pestilence, and famine combine in the work of destruction. Fire and the sword there had full sway.

Language such as that just quoted, openly used by commanding officers, can have but one effect. To all inferiors and subordinates it is an incentive at once direct and powerful to the systematic commission of acts of the character revealed in the printed evidence of the Senate Philippine Committee. To pretend otherwise is, in our judgment, merely to add cant and hypocrisy to cruelty. In the case under consideration the courts-martial subsequently convened habitually, as well as naturally, recorded findings of which those in the Smith and Waller cases were typical. A reprimand has been the not unusual punishment deemed adequate for the killing in cold blood of natives by officers, whether those killed were at the time prisoners or only suspect, if, indeed, even that.

At first, also, the charges of the infliction of torture by the so-called "water cure" met with an indignant denial. One general, recently promoted for the capture or killing of those whose bread and salt he, starving, had just begged and eaten, even went to the length of recording his belief that in no case had "the water cure" ever been administered by an American.

When the actual notoriety of the practice thus denied was proven, evidence of utter demoralization is found in the testimony given before sympathetic courts-martial by officers, apparently inclined to be humorous, to the effect that, before administering to others a torture not unknown to those familiar with the processes of the medieval inquisition, they had first had it tried on themselves. As so applied, they had found it productive of no injurious effects; in certain cases even, they alleged it had proved most beneficial to the health. With a state of demoralization such as evidence of this character implies in both witness and tribunal, it is not easy to deal either seriously or with patience. The impudence of the mockery is manifest.

94 COURTS-MARTIAL IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

Where, in other cases, inquiry revealed the systematic use of torture by subordinates, the officer in responsible command is pronounced free from blame on the ground that his praiseworthy absorption in other duties of his position was so complete that such trivial incidents failed to attract his notice. Such a finding is certainly suggestive; it is also reminiscent of Dreyfus incidents; but in France, as here, "the honor of the Army" was alleged to be assailed. Much indeed, has in those connections been heard of the "honor of the Army," French and American. May we be permitted to suggest that the good name of the United States now, as of France then, is also entitled to some degree of consideration? Of the national conscience, in either case, we do not speak.

Finally, every severity known to a state of war—practices which have excited the special reprobation of the American people when reported as features of the hostilities in Cuba under the Spanish regime, or in South Africa during the Boer war—have been of undisputed and frequent occurrence in the Philippines. From the early beginning of operations there it has been the general practice, if not actually the order, to kill those wounded in conflict; and, in this matter, the depth of the general demoralization reached can perhaps best be studied in the statement of an officer high in command, when confronted with statistics undeniably showing that the killed of the enemy in all engagements with us largely outnumbered the wounded and the prisoners combined, that this unprecedented result, admitting of but one explanation, was due to the fact that our soldiers were so trained as marksmen that they almost invariably struck vital points; and, moreover, that the Filipinos, even in panic flight, made a practice of carrying off their wounded with them. Such evidence gravely given is not only proof conclusive of utter military demoralization, but, we submit, it is with difficulty distinguished from what is usually known as audacious mendacity.

In like manner as respects concentration camps. These, as a feature in recent Spanish and South African operations, excited in us as a people the deepest indignation combined with the most profound sympathy for those thus unmercifully dealt with. When resorted to by our officials in the Philippines, these camps are represented as a species of recreation grounds, into which the inhabitants of large districts rejoiced to be drawn, and from which they departed with sorrow. Reports to which we can, on the other hand, refer in a responsible army journal give of them accounts not essentially different from the accounts received of similar camps established elsewhere. By one army officer they have been likened to "suburbs of hell." Meanwhile, the most persistent effort on our part has failed to obtain from the War Department, or any official source, statistics of disease or mortality in those camps. The published statistics relating to the British camps in South Africa of a similar nature were, on the contrary, precise and periodical. Such being the case, the reports of our medical inspectors on the concentration camps in the Philippines are contrary to reason and opposed to all human experience. As such we hold them to be little less than an insult to the intelligence of those to whom they were addressed.

In the course of a communication addressed to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Philippines, on the 14th of February, the Secretary of War, the Hon. Elihu Root, took occasion to express himself as follows: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American Army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare, with careful and genuine consideration for the prisoner and the noncombatant, with self-restraint, and with humanity never surpassed, if ever equaled, in any conflict, worthy only of praise, and reflecting credit upon the American people." These words of sweeping commendation and unqualified indorsement were written by the honorable Secretary when all the essential facts since brought to light were within his official cognizance. You have given public assurance that the Secretary is more desirous than yourself even, if that be possible, to probe to the bottom every responsible allegation of outrage and torture, to the end that nothing be concealed, and no man be for any reason favored or shielded. The draft on our credulity thus presented is large, but we accept your assurance. Meanwhile permit us to point out that such very sweeping and somewhat uncalled-for commendation and approval, so far as we are advised altogether unprecedented in character, coming directly, and in the midst of active operations, from the fountain head of military authority, is scarcely calculated "to keep a moral check over acts of an improper character by subordinates." It is charitable to assume that the pressure of official business, at the time of the communication referred to, was such that the Secretary failed to recall what correspondents had brought to his notice, or fully to advise himself as to what the files of his Department might have to disclose.

Such are certain of the conclusions reached by us from as careful a study as it has been in our power to make of facts thus far procurable. We have endeavored to supplement and perfect the evidence; but our efforts to that end have encountered

COURTS-MARTIAL IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 95

obstructive embarrassments. We presented a formal memorial to Congress, asking for a complete and impartial investigation to be made on the spot; no action was taken thereon. We sought to have witnesses called by the Senate Philippine Committee, and a more complete inquiry instituted, in which both sides should be heard; our efforts were unavailing. Finally, when evidence led up to the threshold of revelation, officers of the proper department of the Army appointed to make inquiry reported "that considerations of public policy, sufficiently grave to silence every other demand, require that no further action be taken." It was apprehended that "facts would develop implicating many others." Again, was there danger that "the honor of the Army" would be assailed. So further investigation was summarily stop.

The allegations we make are grave; the condition of affairs we describe, serious. As a national record it is discreditable. The good name of the country is implicated, as also is the professional character of officers of the Army, some of them retired, many still in high command. That we ourselves are responsible persons, and that we represent responsible persons, needs scarcely be alleged, much less proven. We stand ready to cooperate directly and in utmost good faith, in the line of Secretary Root's order of April 15th, to the end that all offenders may be brought to justice and the guilty punished. A careful examination of the law has satisfied us that no process possible for us to initiate would elicit further facts or suffice to brir culprits to account. In this communication we have made references to the personal application of which is obvious and of record. To those thus referred to, courts of military inquiry are open; and, if demanded, would doubtless be by you at once accorded. Before such courts, if once convened, we will hold ourselves prepared to substantiate any or all charges here advanced.

Finally, acknowledging the great service rendered in the orders herein referred to, as the result of the investigations we have made and the study we have given to the documentary evidence already educed, we find ourselves, though with deep regret, compelled to take issue with you on one important point. In your "review " of July 14 you say, "almost universally the higher officers have so borne themselves as to supply the necessary check over acts of an improper character by their subordinates." We, on the contrary, have found ourselves compelled to the belief that the acts referred to were far more general—the demoralization more all pervasive. This, we submit and are prepared to show, is established by the evidence before the Senate Philippine Committee; by the findings of the courts-martial published, or on the files of the War Department, and by documentary proof already accessible. There is, indeed, no tribunal before which it could be adduced. None the less, from the material thus by mere chance made accessible to us here, many thousand miles from the scene and long after the time of these occurrences, we hold ourselves ready to direct your attention to concrete cases the investigation of which would demonstrate the following criminal acts, contrary to all recognized rules and usages of war, on the part of officers and soldiers of the United States:

(1) Kidnapping and murder, under circumstances of aggravated brutality.
(2) Robbery.
(3) Torture, both of men and women, and rape of the latter.
(4) The infliction of death on other parties, on the strength of evidence elicited through torture.

The facts in one of these cases, the most aggravated, were early brought to the attention of the chairman of the Senate Philippine Committee (the Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge) and an investigation urged. It was by him promised; but, for reasons of the nature of which we are unadvised, though presumably from a tender regard for "the honor of the Army," no action was taken. The murder of a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, a man educated, refined, and, so far as appears, guilty only of the possession of money, was in this case in question. According to witnesses still believed to be accessible, he was foully done away with by a commissioned officer of the United States, now in New England. In yet another case we are prepared to produce evidence of outrage and torture perpetrated on a Philippine female by those wearing our uniform, and of summary death inflicted on others upon the strength of evidence wrung from her by torture.

There is no tribunal before which these cases can be brought for judicial inquiry. Nevertheless, until such a tribunal exists and is in operation, your order of April 14, that all offenders shall summarily be brought to justice and the guilty punished, is not effective; for much, we have reason to assert, and stand ready to prove, has been and still remains "concealed," while many wrongdoers, for various " reasons," have been and still are "favored or shielded."

Mr. Andrew Carnegie is also a member of our committee. Ile is in Europe, and it has been impossible to consult him in preparing this communication or to obtain his

96 COURTS-MARTIAL IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

signature to it. A copy has been forwarded to his address with a request that he will, after due consideration, communicate with you directly concerning it.

Again thanking you, in our own names and in the names of those we represent, for the strong words you have so opportunely spoken, and the good work already done, we submit the foregoing to your consideration.

We remain, etc.,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.
C. SCHURZ.
EDWIN BURRITT SMITH.
HERBERT WELSH.