and held further that:--
"Under the complaint for this crime it is possible to convict for coaccion under proof of the requisites of that offence ... but among those requisites is that of violence through force or intimidation, even under the liberal rule of our jurisprudence ...; consequently the charge of coaccion against the accused cannot be sustained upon the evidence."
it is nevertheless true that this child, who had been thrice sold, was detained just as effectively in Caoayan as if chained to a post in the house of the man who bought her, and was required by him to perform menial labour without compensation. It would have been utterly impossible for her to escape and to make her way back through Isabela and Nueva Vizcaya to her own people, no matter how strenuously she might have endeavoured to do so.
It is extremely difficult to prove forcible detention in connection with most cases of slavery in these islands. Negrito slaves are usually purchased when mere babes and later have no recollection of their parents or of their former wild life in the hills. Babes or very young children bring a better price than do older children, for the reason that they are less likely to run away.
Adult Negritos, and adult members of other tribes held in slavery, have, as a rule, been made to feel the heavy hand of the oppressor and are so afraid of their lives that they will not testify. Only under very exceptional circ.u.mstances will they admit that they are being held against their will, although they are quick to make their escape when a favourable opportunity presents itself.
The difficulty involved in protecting these simple people is ill.u.s.trated by the following case which came to my personal attention:--
An eleven-year-old Bukidnon girl was carried away from northern Mindanao to Bohol by a Filipino school-teacher who had been discharged from the insular service. Her parents gave every indication of bitter grief and begged to have their daughter restored to them. This was finally accomplished, to their great joy, as a result of my efforts. The kidnapper was ultimately brought into court, but before the case came up for trial the parents had been subjected to such "influence" that when called to the witness-stand they swore that the kidnapper had taken their daughter with their full knowledge and consent.
In order to be reasonably effective, laws in these islands must be so framed as to make it possible to protect people too ignorant, or too timid, to protect themselves.
Returning now to the Supreme Court decision, the court also held that:--
"... the defendant appears to have engaged in the business of buying in Nueva Vizcaya children to sell in the lowlands of Isabela."
But it further held that:--
"Not even the abhorrent species of traffic apparently carried on by the accused justifies a sentence not authorized by law."
More important still, the court held that:--
"The judge below quotes the Bill of Rights of the Philippines contained in the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, declaring that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in said Islands." This const.i.tutional provision is self-acting whenever the nature of a case permits and any law or contract providing for the servitude of a person against his will is forbidden and is void. For two obvious reasons, however, it fails to reach the facts before us:--
"First. The employment or custody of a minor with the consent or sufferance of the parents or guardian, although against the child"s own will, cannot be considered involuntary servitude.
"Second. We are dealing not with a civil remedy but with a criminal charge, in relation to which the Bill of Rights defines no crime and provides no punishment. Its effects cannot be carried into the realm of criminal law without an act of the legislature,"
and also that:--
"To sum up this case, there is no proof of slavery or even of involuntary servitude, inasmuch as it has not been clearly shown that the child has been disposed of against the will of her grandmother or has been taken altogether out of her control. If the facts in this respect be interpreted otherwise, there is no law applicable here, either of the United States or of the Archipelago, punishing slavery as a crime."
In view of the facts above cited the necessity for legislation seemed obvious.
The commission in its capacity as sole legislative body for the territory inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes might have pa.s.sed an act prohibiting and penalizing slavery, involuntary servitude and peonage in that territory; but such an act unless supplemented by a similar one applicable to the neighbouring Filipino territory where most of the slaves are actually held would obviously have been ineffective, while the desirability of having uniform legislation throughout the Philippines was evident.
The Philippine a.s.sembly was about to meet for the first time. The work of drafting a proper bill was duly provided for and I am sure that no member of the commission for a moment entertained the belief that there would be any difficulty in securing the concurrence of the a.s.sembly in the pa.s.sage of a reasonable act prohibiting and penalizing slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage and the sale and purchase of human beings. The gentleman charged with drafting the bill encountered difficulty in so framing it that it would accomplish the desired end without unduly interfering with the rights of parents over their children. Long delay ensued.
I myself finally drafted a bill ent.i.tled: "An Act prohibiting slavery, involuntary servitude, peonage, or the sale of human beings in the Philippine Islands," and introduced it in the commission.
It was pa.s.sed, in slightly amended form, on April 29, 1909, and sent to the Philippine a.s.sembly, where it was introduced on May 6, 1909. On May 7 it was referred to the Committee on Revision of Laws, and on May 17 it was returned by that committee with the following report:--
"May 17, 1909.
"Mr. Speaker: The committee concurs with the Commission in the approval of Bill No. 100 with the following amendments:
"(a) That the word "slavery" be stricken out of the t.i.tle of the Act, because it does not exist in the Philippines.
"(b) That from section 1, page 1, lines 7 and 8, the following words be stricken out: "take the fruits of his labours, compel him to deliver to another the fruits of his labours," since the acts contained therein const.i.tute other crimes that may be robo, hurto, or estafa.
"(c) From line 11 in the same section the words: "less than six months nor;" and from line 12 the words: "less than one hundred pesos and not;" because the acts penalized in section 1 may be of such slight importance that they should not deserve a punishment of imprisonment for six months or a fine of one hundred pesos.
"(d) From line 22 (p. 2), the word: "peso," subst.i.tuting for it: "two pesos and a half."
"With these enactments Commission Bill No. 100 is drawn up, according to the one attached hereto.
"For these reasons the committee submits for the consideration of the a.s.sembly Commission Bill No. 100 and recommends its approval with the amendments introduced.
"Respectfully submitted.
(Signed) "Aguedo Velarde, "Chairman, Committee on Revision of Laws.
"To the Honourable, "The Speaker of the Philippine a.s.sembly."
This report, if adopted, would have emasculated the bill by striking out the minimum penalties, but it was not adopted. On May 19 the a.s.sembly laid the bill on the table without discussion.
So began a long struggle to secure the cooperation of the a.s.sembly in the enactment of legislation on this important subject.
I did not feel that the a.s.sembly ought to be allowed to make a joke of the provision of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, that "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in said islands," and inserted a frank statement of the case in my annual report. During my absence it was cut out by the governor-general acting on the cabled suggestion of General, then Colonel, McIntyre, speaking for the secretary of war. The Secretary, it is understood, based his decision on the statement of alleged facts and the argument in the above-mentioned memorandum prepared by General McIntyre, and signed by General Edwards, then chief of the bureau of insular affairs. Various of these statements of alleged facts were incorrect, and much of the argument was fallacious, but the toute ensemble was plausible, and likely to mislead any one not thoroughly familiar with local conditions in the Philippines. I did not see this communication until three years later, and so had no opportunity seasonably to discuss it, or to present my side of the case.
On learning that all reference to slavery had been cut out of my report, I sent the following memorandum to the governor-general:--
"Baguio, February 28, 1909.
"Memorandum for the Honourable the Governor-General.
"Practices in the matter of purchasing and practically enslaving the children of wild people, and holding wild people in the state of peonage, closely approaching slavery, are more grave and more common than is ordinarily understood here; and, in my opinion, as stated in my report, ought to be brought to the attention of the Congress of the United States if the situation is not dealt with effectively by the Philippine Legislature at its next regular session.
"I do not object to the omission from my report of the matter treating on this subject, with the understanding that a strong effort will be made here to secure legislation which will, at least, penalize the sale for cash or other valuable consideration of human beings.
"As things stand at present, we should be placed in a somewhat embarra.s.sing situation if any one thoroughly acquainted with the facts were to ask us what we had done to make effective the provisions of the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery.
"Dean C. Worcester, "Secretary of the Interior."