NEW HAMPSHIRE (REP.).

William J. Hoyt, Seth M. Richards, Joseph O. Hobbs, William H. Mitchell.

NEW JERSEY (REP.).

John F. Dryden, David Baird, John M. Moore, Washington A. Roebling, Frederick P. Olcott, DeWitt C. Blair, William McKenzie, George E. Halsey, Elbert Rappleye, Wilberforce Freeman.

NEW YORK (REP.).

Edward H. Butler, Samuel J. Underhill, Samuel Rowland, Michael J. Dady, Charles H. Russell, John Kissel, Henry C. Fischer, Joseph Simonson, William E. Billings, Herman J. Katz, Frank Tilford, Samuel S. Koenig, Arthur P. Sturges, James Yereance, Emanuel W. Bloomingdale, William Scherer, Frank V. Millard, Clarence Lexow, Francis B. Mitchell, John N. Cordts, Peter McCarthy, Samuel L. Munson, William S. C. Wiley, Royal Newton, Wm. T. O'Neil, David M. Anderson, Robert MacKinnon, William G. Phelps, Ransom B. True, Robert Bushby, Franklin D. Sherwood, Charles F. Prentice, George Eastman, Christian Klinck, George Urban, Jr., Herbert C. Rich.

NORTH CAROLINA (DEM.).

Lee S. Overman, Daniel Hugh McLean, Charles L. Abernethy, Thomas C. Wooten, Henry L. Cook, Bosworth C. Beckwith, William A. Guthrie, William C. Dowd, Joseph R. Blair, William S. Pearson, John M. Campbell.

NORTH DAKOTA (REP.).

C. M. Johnson, A. M. Tofthagen, H. G. Vick.
OHIO (REP.).

William P. Orr, Myron T. Herrick, Joseph T. Carew, Thomas P. Egan, William H. Manning, Emil H. Moser, John B. White, F. M. Cunningham, John N. Van Deman, Otis H. Kimball, Noah H.Swayne, Joseph A. Shriver, William L. Stinson, William B. Woodbury, Henry B. Hane, William T. Francis, Martin B. Archer, Samuel K. McLaughlin, Harry J. Hoover, Julius Whiting, Jr., William Wallace, E. J. Kennedy, James W. Conger.

OREGON (REP.).

Tilmon Ford, J. C. Fullerton, W. J. Furnish, Q. F. Paxton.

PENNSYLVANIA (REP.).

William H. Sayen, Clarence Wolf, Frank H. Buhl, Algernon B. Roberts, Edwin S. Stuart, William W. Gibbs, George F. Hoffman, George C. Blabon, Daniel R. Greenwood, William M. Hayes, Charles N. Cressman, Robert H. Sayre, Russell W. Davenport, John Franklin Keller, James Moir, William J. Harvey, Robert Allison, Jacob L. Hauer, Richard H. Ely, George Weymouth, Cortez Hicks Jennings, James G. Thompson, J. Frank Small, Henry A. Gripp, Morris J. Lewis, Robert Pitcairn, David Edgar Park, Thomas S. Crago, George W. Johnson, William Hardwick, Harold H. Clayson, Harry R. Wilson.

RHODE ISLAND (REP.). Frank F. Olney, Alexander G. Crumb, Robert B. Treat, George H. Norman.

SOUTH CAROLINA (DEM.).

R. D. Lee, B. H. Moss, M. W. Simmons, W. W. Williams, Cole L. Blease, W. McB. Sloan, W. P. Pollock, M. S. Cantey, D. H. Behre.

AT

T an expenditure of effort, great enough to have deterred me from making it, had I known in advance all it involved, I have examined public records and in other ways exhaustively looked into the important matter of land titles in the Philippine Islands.

The reason that there is a land question in the Philippines is the slipshod and unbusinesslike way of dealing with land titles in the past. Up to the beginning of the century, no titles of record appear anywhere. It was only about forty years ago that records began to be made with anything like system, and only then by the more intelligent classes. There were land laws, such as they were, but few obeyed them, and it was not until 1894 that a general mortgage law was promul gated. Out of this Spanish way of doing things badly, two conditions were evolved. One was that the tenant, of small and large holders alike, came to be part owner of the land; to have traditionary right in its sale, and to have a sort of feudal right to look to his landlord for personal protection in case of need. During the insurrection of 1898 and 1899, several Manila landlords had to entertain tenants who came in from the estates. The other condition was that landed estates grew-just how, the records do not show. But they grew, and titles in the shape of formidable documents came into existence. There is a tradition that the government owned all unoccupied land; and this was easily stretched to give title to some occupied land. Sharpers, of course,

appeared on the scene; the wise took advantage of the credulous.

ent.

Large Luzon landholders are by no means confined to the friars. They include Spaniards, Mestizos, and Filipinos. I am very far from saying that the religious orders acquired any land dishonestly. All I can say is that they, in common with other large holders, conducted the real-estate transactions in such manner that they cannot or will not now show the origin of their titles, and hence are open to suspicion. Intelligent tenants tell me stories of oppression. Such stories are in general circulation. They are believed. Hence the trouble, past and presThe Tuason family-rich Mestizo-Chinos hold a large part of the Mariquina Valley, and all of the town of Mariquina. Stories are related by tenants, and believed, that this estate, like many others held by families, as distinguished from religious orders, was acquired in part by registering all land surrounding it, settling with such tenants as complained, and easily taking advantage of others. The latter were the great majority, and they submitted through fear of the courts. When it is remembered that General Weyler was, about this time, behind the courts, it will be seen that their fear had grounds for existence.

Concerning some land held by friars, the story is told me that farmers were first asked for a small annual contribution toward the building of a church and its support thereafter. Receipts

For

were given. Soon these contributions were demanded as a right, and finally came to be annual rentals of land which they occupied, and which the Church claimed by this time to own. example, the town of Naic is included in the hacienda of the same name, although to my own knowledge the original deeds do not so include it. These are incidents told and believed by the tenants; they will have to be cleared up, whether true or false.

It is an easy task to give a list of large estates. For example, the Dominicans have 140,000 acres in the immediate vicinity of Manila. One of these, the hacienda of Naic, on the south shore of the bay, 20 miles from Manila, contains 20,000 acres. I have seen a bundle of papers which, I was told, were the title-papers; and yet I know these have never been registered. The Calamba estate was bought in 1834 from a bankrupt Spaniard, and here General Weyler figured later. The Augustinians have a large estate just south of Manila. The Gonzales estate is at the junction of the Provinces of Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija. The Dominicans, Augustinians, Franciscans, Recoletanos, Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, and Jesuits all have large churches, convents, schools, etc., within the walled city, in Cavité, and in Paco; and they and others serve in semi-public institutions, such as orphan asy

lums.

The Dominicans occupy four large blocks in Manila, the Augustinians two, and the other orders one block each, all in the walled part of Manila.

The mortgage law that was promulgated in 1894 exempts from the civil record titles to all land on which a Roman Catholic church stands, and all lands belonging to civil or religious corporations, except when sold or transferred to some other party. Property belonging to priests must be registered, but the register is ecclesiastical, not civil. Construction of this provision has been exceedingly loose, as in the case of the Dominican holding of the vast Naic estate. Señor Mabini, former prime minister of the Filipino Government, suggests the appointment of a commission, to go from place to place and hear all cases arising out of land tenure. He says the people want equity rather than law.

He says

members of the commission should have regard for the ignorance of the people. Against this suggestion is to be placed the action of the Dominicans.

The eight properties of this order near Manila, already mentioned, were hastily disposed of to a so-called English syndicate for the sum of 5,000,000 pesos. The sale was made in Hongkong, between the dates of the battles of Cavité and of Manila. It happened that the cable was

cut, as will be remembered; and before it was repaired, the Dominicans found it desirable to sell their sugar estates, for such they are, to the firm of Andrews & Co., paying 50,000 pesos to be released from their Hongkong hasty deal. Of the 5,000,000 pesos capital, 4,220,000 has been subscribed by French and Spanish capitalists, who are said to reside at Haipon, Tonkin. The other 780,000 pesos is to be put on the market in Manila when conditions better warrant. The times at which the alleged sales were made, the large subscriptions from a place so small as Tonkin, and the secrecy surrounding all, lead the Filipinos to believe that the Dominicans are masquerading as Andrews & Co. I have these facts from first hands. I do not say there is anything wrong in them; simply that Filipinos suspect these and similar transactions, not alone by friars, but by other large landholders.

There are three kinds of Church property :

1. The Parish. This is a broad term in the Philippines, and covers not only the sites of the churches, but lands connected with these sites; the privileges, whatever they were, having always been stretched to their utmost in favor of the orders. They include convent, rectory, cemetery, glebe, and even farm lands purchased out of parish incomes. For the most part these lands were presented by the town or by the Spanish Government, and most of the buildings were erected jointly from offerings of the people and taxes. Up to the beginning of this century, Spaniards alone were expected to pay churchtithes for the support of religion; but about that time Spaniards were released, and the government paid salaries of all priests and an annual lump sum to the orders. About the administration of the parish cemeteries, all sorts of hard things are said. They are also denied. here is one fact and one true incident: Parish cemeteries as kept by the priests are a disgrace, even to a barbarous community. In Peñafrancia, some years ago, the local president was said to be unfaithful in his administration of the town land. A suit was brought, and, pending its decision, the land was turned over to the local priest as administrator. To-day the land is claimed as Church property, although no title has ever passed legally.

But

2. The second class of Church property is that held by the orders. It consists of lands, buildings, and in some cases shares in business companies; held, not for the personal profit of the ecclesiastics, but for the advancement of the interests of their orders and their work. I am unable to discover, from records or from inquiries, how these properties were first acquired by the orders. They date back to the time of

the beginning of things in the colony. It is said the government made some grants, and the friars augmented them by purchase and by gift. The orders have been a kind of universal trustee.

3. The third class of property is the invested funds, which have in time past been left to the Mitra for various "obras pias," or pious works. I have seen copies of some of the wills bequeathing these funds. One woman left 300 pesos, to be invested until it reached 1,000 pesos; thereafter, the income was to pay for a requiem mass for her soul, the same to be said on October 27 of each year. A man left 18,000 pesos to be invested-365 pesos for a mass each day in the year; 100 bullas de defuncto" at half a peso each, and so on. Abulla de defuncto" is a general indulgence for the dead that anybody may buy for 50 cents.

66

The obras pias" of the Mitra of Manila netted 83,340.71 pesos in 1893, and 94,421 in 1895. A regular office force is maintained to manage the business, for besides these small accumulations there are large "obras pias" for the founding of institutions. The University of Santo Tomas and the School of San Juan de Letran come under this head. There are also 105 chaplaincies for the support of chapels in parish

towns.

In the past, I learn that some chief men of the village were called in to witness the examination of parish accounts, but that a decade or two ago, when political troubles in the island began and the people indicated their displeasure, their presence was to be dispensed with. The parish priest manages the financial as well as the spiritual affairs, and has been accountable to his bishop only; or, if a friar, to his provincial and his bishop. So far as I can learn, and I have tried to learn much, Filipinos are willing that property now Church property shall remain such if they (the Filipinos) are considered the Church. Objection is made to the Church being defined as the ecclesiastics, and to the right of the latter to transfer Church wealth to another country. Let me give an illustration.

The Church at Paco was used by sharpshooters, and was destroyed by fire in February, 1898. The walls and tower stood intact, and the building could have been restored for about $7,000.

Nothing was done to repair it, however, and the archbishop ordered the walls torn down. This was done, and the stone carted away and sold, the archbishop presumably receiving the proceeds, for the people did not; and now the priest has presented to Archbishop Chapelle a bill of $150,000 to be forwarded to our Government for payment for the destroyed church.

Filipinos nourish a sense of wrong, without being able to specify particulars. Legal questions do not interest them. They put no trust in legal documents, and fear the courts. They want justice more than law, and perhaps vengeance more than either. They want Church properties registered the same as other property. They want wealth given to the Church by them to remain in the Philippines and be used for their benefit. And they want to know how it is used, and to have some voice in its management. The friars are Spanish, and are leaving for Spain. Will they take Church wealth with them? Filipinos do not know whether they will or not. I do not pretend to express any opinion further than this: that Church administration, by its secrecy, if by nothing more, has opened the door for complaints. If the Church in the Philippines did not sow the wind, it was the most powerful agent present when the wind was sown, and it cannot now complain if it is injured by the whirlwind.

Tenants in Luzon make two complaints-(1) that the land they till is not the rightful property of the reputed landlord to whom they pay rent; and (2) that improvements made by them on land tilled by them have simply led to advances in rentals. The land question in the Philippines -or, at any rate, in Luzon-has phases similar to the same question in Ireland, and to questions which caused the anti-rent war in the Hudson Valley in 1842-44. Publicity of all transactions; frankness in dealing with the poor and ignorant; equality of all persons before the law, priest, peasant, and landed proprietor alike, these will be able to bring about better things. There is little use in bringing charges for past misdeeds on the part of the friars, if there have been such. Forget the past, make Filipinos. know the honest purpose of the present, and the future will furnish the remedy.

HE federal union of all the colonies occupy.

Australia is an event of much greater importance to the world at large than many people may at the first glance be inclined to suppose. The great events of history, indeed, are too apt to be connected, in men's minds, with wars, invasions, and violent changes in the political situation of nations; and yet, as a rule, the very greatest changes in the history of human society have little to do with such events. It may perhaps be considered a sign of the times that, of all the important political changes likely to be of wide interest and importance to the world, this latest federation of states has been the outcome of the least violent pressure from without or within of any that history records.

In every other case in which self-governing states have consented to give up their powers of absolute self-government in exchange for a larger political life, there has been an element of external pressure, arising either from present danger from without or the apprehension of such danger in the future. No such consideration has had any discoverable part in bringing about the federation of the British colonies of Aus tralia, which takes effect on the first day of the twentieth century. Too distant from any of the world's civilized and aggressive powers to fear invasion; too confident in themselves and their British connection to feel any apprehension as to their future, the people of Australia have deliberately elected to become one great people, owning a whole continent, under the impression that a position so unique must carry with it hereafter no common advantages and influence.

This action of the people of Australia has been exceedingly calm and deliberate. Eight years in all have been consumed in dealing with the change-from the time when the first formal convention sat to devise a constitution that might command the assent of all the six colonies, as the basis of a union, to the day when the last of the six accepted, by an overwhelming vote of its people, the constitution which has been finally ratified by the British Parliament. The constitution has been discussed and rediscussed by the people of the various colonies, and amended and reamended by their delegates, until at last it has taken the form of the most democratic constitu

tion in force in any part of the world at this

moment.

Such facts as these alone would entitle the event of the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia to special interest among all free peoples; but there are other reasons that lend additional interest to the new departure. These arise partly from the position and prospects of the new federation itself; partly also from the situation of Great Britain at this time, and the probable influence which the commonwealth may have on her future policy and national development. The influence likely to be exerted by any part of an empire-even of an empire so strangely constituted, and apparently so loosely linked together, as that of Great Britain now is— must depend on many things; but it will certainly be in a great degree limited by the wealth and commercial vigor of the dependency, and the energy and aggressiveness of its people. should be interesting at this time to form some estimate of what these are likely to be in the case of Australia.

A WEALTHY PEOPLE.

It

The colonies of Australia, though a very young, are a very wealthy community. The really active existence as a free community of the very oldest of them all does not yet exceed sixty years; their career of self-government, which has also been that of their success, has in no single case yet extended over half a century. England, warned by past experience in the case of this country, made haste to divide her great territorial acquisition of the continent of the southern ocean between the young communities of her own children that had undertaken the gigantic task of developing it, and they one and all have proved themselves fully equal to the task. The development of America during the last halfcentury has been marvelous; but though less known, and less widely appreciated, that of Australia has been no less wonderful. The first difficulty which her people had to encounter was the distance between their country and all other countries likely to afford markets for their goods, or to supply freely the much-needed additions to their numbers.

A voyage to Australia was one then requiring four months for its completion, and demanding