the Paco church of 150,000 pesos. In regard to the occupancy of these buildings, in almost every case the buildings were in the hands of the insurgents; they were driven out and our occupation immediately followed, as mentioned in the report, exclusively as fortifications. I won't say exclusively, but frequently as fortifications. They fired therefrom upon our troops as they advanced. The question of wanton damage has played quite an important part in the discussions here in the committee. There has evidently been a misunderstanding on the part of some of the committee as to the actual facts. The wanton damage refers mainly to these articles of loot, also to fire, but where partitions were taken down, where walls were scratched, where nail holes were made, and where there was the usual waste during the occupancy of the buildings by the soldiers, such as is liable to be committed by soldiers, such was not considered as wanton and was duly considered. The CHAIRMAN. But not for loot. Colonel HULL. That was against orders. There never has been an army in the history of mankind that behaved itself with more propriety than did our army in the Philippines. The comparison between the army in the Philippines and the allied armies in China was most marked. The United States has nothing to apologize for in this regard. Mr. DAVIS. They did not imitate Napoleon in Italy. Mr. McKINLAY. Some of the boys in China did. You would think so if you saw the stream of loot that came into San Francisco after the expedition in China. Colonel HULL. But even then the American forces were much better than the other armies. I hope that I have made myself plain as to what the Board rejected and what it put in. Of course we did reject burnings and we did reject loot, except as mentioned in the report. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any other claims that you might go through in a hurried way, in order to show the committee how you acted upon them, and to show what was taken into consideration? Mr. MADISON. Do you know what is the rate of legal interest in the Philippine Islands? Colonel HULL. During this period it was about 8 per cent, and most of these things took place in 1899 to 1900. A few of them extended up as far as 1902. Mr. GARRETT. Is that the rate of the Spanish-Filipino Bank or the usual rate? Colonel HULL. The usual rate on A No. 1 commercial paper. Of course, the rates of the usurers run away up to the ceiling. The CHAIRMAN. The usurers' rates run up as high as 80 per cent, all the way from 20. One went even as high as 110 per cent. Colonel HULL. I can take up the case of Mexico, Pampanga. Here is the report on that case [indicating]. The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of that claim in the printed pamphlet? Do you remember? Colonel HULL. It is Exhibit No. 512. It is case No. 242. Here is a claim for 124,700.24 pesos for rental and damages to church and convent. The CHAIRMAN. Let us get that in dollars. It would be about $62,000. Mr. FORNES. And you allowed $1,100. Colonel HULL. Here is a long claim which I will not take time to read, as a great part of it was for bricks and lumber. According to the claim the property was completely surrounded by lumber and bricks. Here is a report by an officer of the army whose name is P. J. Hennessey, second lieutenant of the Fifth Cavalry. I should judge from his name that he is a Catholic. Here is his full report of that case, and besides that the Board took testimony. The priest was punished by a military commission for aiding the insurgents. The board felt by the time that they got through with that case that the claim of the church in this instance was not substantiated. We found that a lot of these bricks had been used by the Spanish troops in the insurrection of 1896 in building trenches against the insurgents, and that they had also been used by the insurgents in building trenches against us, and that the people used the lumber. That claim was cut down to what we thought was a reasonable basis. On the other hand, at the same time we had that priest before ushis testimony appears farther on-there was a priest from a neighboring place, San Fernando, Pampanga. When that priest got through testifying, there was not a member of the Commission who did not believe him. I have here a number of pictures. Here is Exhibit No. 1554, a very large building which we used as a hospital. The CHAIRMAN. Just pass it around the committee, please. Colonel HULL. There was a large hospital located at Nueva Caceres. Here is a large school which was used by the troops [indicating]. Here is a cathedral, Exhibit No. 1555 [indicating], at Nueva Caceres. The cathedral at Manila is larger. I have here a photograph of a convento in San Fernando (Exhibit No. 1578) which was injured by shells from the United States troops. Nothing was allowed for such damages, it being held that the destruction was an act of war. Here is Exhibit No. 1559, the Bishop's Palace at Vigan. This was also used by the troops. Here is a church at Pilar, Sorsogon (Exhibit No. 1576). The evidence showed that it had been burned three times by the insurgents. (The photographs were exhibited to the committee.) Mr. FORNES. Are those pictures a part of the record? Colonel HULL. Yes, sir. I am just identifying them. No. 1568 is a church at Basey, Samar. The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest that I be permitted to have it published as a part of the report of these proceedings. Mr. GARRETT. I am in favor of that. Colonel HULL. Exhibits Nos. 1565, 1566, and 1567 are pictures of a church and convento that were destroyed by the American troops as an act of war. They were situated at Hilongos, Leyte, looking out upon the Mindanao Sea. They were used as fortifications by the Spanish people. No. 1560 is a photograph of a girls' school at Vigan, which was used as a hospital. Mr. GARRETT. I move that the chairman of the committee be requested to select and put into the hearings the more important of these pictures. The CHAIRMAN. That would enable the House to see the character of the buildings. (The question being put, the motion carried.) |