The Miles Report
The most important single controversy between the Anti-Imperialist League, as represented by Mr. Herbert Welsh, and the Administration, was over the publication of the report of General Nelson A. Miles on the Philippines.
The election of 1900 left the Democrats more completely defeated than ever, and the cause of anti-imperialism suffered defeat with them. A new method of arousing public opinion was thus needed to keep the issue alive, and in 1902, the investigation and exploitation of military abuses in the Philippines was suggested by Mr. H. Parker Willis as a means of keeping the question alive before the public. Writing to Mr. Herbert Welsh, Mr. Willis said:
"I believe we have reached the end of our rope in the movement against Imperialism, unless we can take it up and carry it on by new methods.... What we want is (1) new and thorough information concerning the state of affairs in the Philippines and in the army; and (2) means to spread these facts abroad and make them known to the people. We cannot do anything by appealing to the authorities, unless we can get public opinion behind us. To do this we must have the information. The matters we have been speaking of most largely, are matters that occurred sometime ago. That makes it hard to enlist public attention in the matter. The reports of commanding officers indicate clearly enough that things are just as bad in the islands as ever.... You know these things as well as I do. but I desire to put myself on record with you as believing that to make a success of this movement and get something accomplished, we must have large funds...."(1)
Mr. Willis suggested a special committee for the purpose of raising this fund. Charles Elliot Norton suggested the formation of a committee to be composed of men not known to have strong anti-imperialist convictions,(2) to visit the Philippines. Charles Francis Adams urged that Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles be sent to the Philippines, believing that he would send back reliable news. To Adams this seemed to be the best means because he said:
"Our greatest efforts must be directed at the disclosure of the real facts in the case as they exist in the Philippines. We have had only garbled and suppressed reports.... As to further evidence on this side of the water, I am afraid it will have little effect. It is all discounted. The witnesses are discredited; or it is stated that they are "sporadic cases."(3)
In a letter to Carl Schurz, May 6, 1902, Adams said:
"The thing that today would best satisfy the people of the United States, and go farthest to allay the present agitation, would be to take Miles at his word and cause him to go to the Philippines, as General of the Army, with the usual powers belonging to his rank, and on a tour of general inspection."(4)
Mr. Adams, with Jacob Gould Schurman, consequently went to Washington to press the matter over. Carl Schurz declined to accompany them on the ground that he had little influence there because of his reputation as an "extremist".(5)
General Nelson A. Miles was sent by the Roosevelt Administration to the Philippines in 1902 on a tour of investigation and, in 1903, submitted his report. This report reviewed Philippine affairs. In fact, there was nothing new in it. It related news of the army which had already become an "old story" in the United States. There arose, however, a misunderstanding over the publication of the document, Mr. Welsh feeling that the administration was seeking to suppress it. Consequently there followed an acrimonious controversy between the anti-imperialists, especially Mr. Herbert Welsh, on the one hand, and the government and those who upheld the action of the government, on the other.
Mr. Welsh distributed a circular letter(6) asking prominent citizens to write to the President and other officers of the government urging the full publication of the Miles report, believing as he did that it contained much new and interesting information regarding the Philippines. Many people enthusiastically wrote, as requested.
Among those who sympathized with the work of the Anti.-Imperialist League Investigation Committee were a number of women. One letter has been selected here to show the general tenor of those sent to Mr. Welsh. The letter ran:
"You have my deepest sympathy in your almost single handed conflict with the dragon of evil that is blasting the American conscience, and threatening all the future honor of our nation. When I feel most intensely the grief and shame of the situation in the Philippines my thoughts turn to you as to a champion. I would do anything I could to cooperate if it were possible in your work though I have little influence.
"The censorship, suppression of truth, even distorting and perversion of the truth, by the Government and all its representatives in office with few exceptions, the acceptance of all this by an indifferent people, willing to shirk a troublesome responsibility, is so discouraging that it is hard to tell what to do...."(7)
Former Senator William F. Mason of Illinois agreed with Mr. Welsh. In a letter to the latter, he said: "Let me say that your letter is the first gleam of sunshine that I have had for many days." While in the Senate, he said, he had busied himself with Philippine matters, as he was horrified by "this departure from the colonial form of government to the present form of government."(8)
From among the members of Congress, we may note the reaction of a few to Mr. Welsh's circular letter of May 14. Senator Hoar wrote to him:
"The customary and proper method of obtaining the information which you seek, by Senators of the United States, is to move in the Senate for a request to the President.... Of course in mere routine matters, in which there is no doubt that the Executive would have no objection to make the matters public, individual Senators would make such applications. But in such a case like this, where there seems some disposition to withold what you desire to know; I should consider such application on my part improper, unless it were for information in my official duties. It might expose me to an uncomfortable and humiliating rebuff."(9)
Representative Bartlett, in declining to comply with Mr. Welsh's request, declared:
"I am satisfied that nothing I could write or say to any one of these officials would change their purpose, or accomplish anything upon the lines you suggest.
"In accordance with the duty of the President and the heads of the Departments, they should lay all this information before Congress when it meets. If they fail to do so, either house of Congress or any member can by resolution of inquiry ask for and obtain this information. I am willing to aid in securing it in that way, which I deem to be the proper way, in the event it should not be conveyed to Congress through the channels pointed out by law when Congress convenes. But other than this, I am not willing to undertake to obtain the information, because I believe it will end in failure, and I do not desire to engage in any controversy with the heads of the Department, and whatever I do shall be done as a representative in Congress when that body meets."(10)
Mr. Josephus Daniels, then, as now, editor of the News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, wrote a diplomatic answer: "I am in receipt of your letter of May 14th, and thank you for the same. The report of General Miles ought to be printed in full, and I hope you can get up enough public sentiment to insure that it will be done."(11)
There were, however, a large number who refused to comply with the request, and some who not only refused, but were offended by the request. Among the latter group were a number of prominent army officers. Brigadier General Thomas M. Anderson, who himself had seen service in the islands, wrote to Mr. Welsh that after forty years of army experience he could not believe that army officers were cruel and unjust.(12) Major General Adna R. Chafee regarded it an extraordinary impropriety on the part of Mr. Welsh to suggest to him to write to his superiors regarding the army in the Philippines. He said:
"It would be highly improper ... a gross breach of military-discipline ... for me to make a communication, open or confidential, advising or suggesting specific action with reference to a matter or duty that is so clearly outside the duty of an officer in the army as is the case you refer to."(13)
John B. Sanborn, a retired Brevet Major General of the U. S. Volunteers, said that while he believed in General Miles, he was convinced that Miles' efforts were too late and that they would only tend towards the demoralization of the army. His experience during the war of the rebellion was that "prominent and law-abiding citizens were shot down by soldiers without cause or reason as a result of the strong passion aroused by war." "The soldiers," he declared, "were arrested and tried before courts-martial, in which many cases were tried upon evidence that would have satisfied an ordinary jury of guilt. There was not a single instance of conviction of either an officer or an enlisted man. Human nature proved inadequate for the conviction of a fellow officer for the commission of such offences."(14)
Among the. well known civilians, who replied was Mr. George W. Curtis, a practicing attorney of New York, whose comment was:
"Individual interference with or criticism direct or indirect of the War Department, is a menace to proper discipline.... Your plan seems to me to have as its object that which is impossible -- the political resurrection of the politically dead."(15)
Mr. Curtis thought that Mr. Welsh was inspired by a desire for the election of General Miles to the White House or the re-election of Mr. Cleveland to the "Presidency for life."
The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian church felt that they did not want to interfere with the Secretary of War in whatever action was left to his discretion.(16) Others could not see the good of unearthing facts that might be discreditable to the army.(17)
President Eliot of Harvard stated his position upon the question in the following manner:
"When a criminal trial is actually going on, I do not think that the daily press is justified in appealing to public sentiment either for or against the accused, particularly when the press has very imperfect access to the facts."(18)
Dean Mortimer E. Cooley of the Engineering College of the University of Michigan was perfectly satisfied to leave Philippine matters in the hands of those who had charge of them, and believed that things would reach a more speedy and satisfactory adjustment if the people at large would leave the matter in the hands of the proper officials and not embarrass them by sentimental action."(19)
President Draper of the University of Illinois was irritated by Mr. Welsh broadcast and replied to him:
"I am at a loss to see what could lead you to assume that I would be disposed to become a cog in your machine for discrediting the Army or the government.... I do not feel called upon to discuss the matters to which your letter refers, but I will say that while it was inevitably true that things occurred in the Philippine campaign, which the stay-at-homes would regret, yet it seems to me there is every reason to believe those things were less common than is usual in warfare, and that the responsible officers of the Army have shown every disposition to punish offenders in quite as full measure as circumstances demand, or the sound sentiment of the country is disposed to sustain."(20)
Still another type of sentiment was expressed by a number of correspondents of whom Prof. H. Norman Gardener of Smith College is a fair example. Professor Gardener complied with the request made by Mr. Welsh, but expressed little confidence in General Miles and in the utility of his report. To him it seemed of little value, "being largely a collection of such hearsay stories as we are already familiar with."(21)
But was the report of General Nelson E. Miles really kept from the public by the War Department, as represented by Mr. Herbert Welsh? To inquiries made by W. G. Rice, Judge-Advocate General George B. Davis answered:
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 19th instant in the matter of General Miles' report. The full text of the report was given to the newspapers over two weeks ago and every facility was afforded which was calculated to give it the widest publication.
"There was no suppression of any part of it as will be seen when I tell you that I allowed several correspondents to use the report itself as copy. The incidents mentioned in General Miles' report are undergoing investigation and these reports, together with Major Hunter's, will be given out when they have been received and examined by the Department."(22)
The Secretary of War, Mr. Elihu Root, said that by June 6, 1903, the War Department had received seventy-six letters of inquiry as the result of Mr. Welsh's circular of May 14. Ninety-eight people forwarded the circular to the Department, eighteen without comment and eighty with expression of strong disapproval of the circular.(23) The Secretary of War said he had been informed that the request was sent to those who were cited in "Who's Who' in America."(24) It is not known how many of these persons were actually addressed. We are, however, sure that the circular of May 14 was sent to hundreds of citizens. On June 6, 1903, Secretary Root sent his own "circular letter" to all of those who had written to the War Department in response to Mr. Welsh's request. This communication was as follows:
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 23rd, relating to the publication of the recent report of General Miles about affairs in the Philippine Islands.
"The report referred to was made public on the 27th of April last by furnishing full and complete copies to all the press associations and all the principal newspapers of the country through their representatives in Washington. The substance was published generally throughout the country, and you can doubtless find it in your own newspapers for the week following April 27th.
"If you wish a verbatim copy you will find it in the Army and Navy Journal of May 2nd (published at 93 Nassau Street, New York.) That is complete and accurate except for the omission of the words "(copy herewith inclosed)", referring to an enclosure containing details of sales of rice explained at large in the report. That enclosure was also given to the press, but no newspaper considered it of any general interest or cared to publish it. It is open to inspection by anyone, but would add nothing to an understanding of the subject.
"The report of Major Hunter, to which you also refer, was not a part of the report of General Miles, or enclosed or referred to in it. It is a report made in the Philippines to the General Commanding there in the course of a judicial proceeding, and was recently forwarded to Washington in due course. The necessary action by the Department was taken without any avoidable delay only last week. All the papers in the proceeding, including the report, were then made public by furnishing complete copies to the press; and all that the different newspapers thought important or interesting was published. As the papers contained 389 typewritten pages, the Department cannot undertake to furnish any further copies.
"You will appreciate the fact that the method adopted to make these papers public is the customary method by which the Government at Washington informs the people of the country of what is going on. The press has conformed itself to this method, and all the great press associations have their representatives here, and all the great newspapers have their special representatives. As the business of the newspapers is to publish everything that the people are interested in, and their representatives are here for the sole purpose of getting such information, there is not much danger of anything really important failing to reach the people when it is given to the press representatives. This is especially so of things that seem adverse to the Administration, because all the newspapers most violently opposed to the Administration have their representatives here, and in this particular case they had full copies of these papers equally with all the others."(25)
The Miles Report was at the disposal of newspaper men long before Herbert Welsh's circular letters were written. Who was to blame for this unnecessary fuss made over it? Was it entirely due to carelessness on the part of the chairman of the Anti-Imperialist Investigating Committee? Or, had anyone played on the emotions of Mr. Welsh? On May 7, 1903, General Miles wrote to Mr. Welsh:
"I enclose you a copy of that part of the Army and Navy Journal which contained my report. It is the only paper that I know of that has published my full report. How they got it I do not know, and why it was not given out in full at first I do not know."(26)
On May 15, he again wrote:
"You will see by the papers this morning that it is stated that the whole of my report was given out -- a part to Colonel Hall and a part to Judge Advocate General Davis, to be given to the press; and you also have seen what portion of it reached the public. Now, the question is, who was responsible for witholding or editing the report, or giving it out to the public in a garbled form? Some of the newspaper men say that they could not get a copy of my report. Possibly some of your Philadelphia friends can inform you if they received the entire report, and if not, why not.
"I am surprised to see a letter of yours addressed to different people asking them to write to the President, Secretary of War, General Corbin, General Davis, Colonel Hall and Colonel Ennis. Now, I appreciate your good will, but I cannot understand why you should ask people to write to my subordinates Corbin, Davis, Hall and Ennis to give to the public my report. From whom did you get the list of people to whom your letter was addressed?
"Please inform me on these subjects.
"It is remarkable that the atrocities committed in the Philippine Islands were not committed at the instigation of soldiers of the Army, and in none of my reports did I censure them as the authors of those unlawful acts, and in fact, there were but few instances of American soldiers being present or taking part, and then they were under the direction of their officers."(27)
Was it General Miles, then who played on Herbert Welsh's credulity? William E. Curtis of the Chicago Record-Herald wrote on May 16, 1903, in answer to Mr. Welsh's circular letter of May 14:
"Your most extraordinary letter of May 14 is received and in reply I beg to say that none, but an insane man would have written it. The report of General Miles is public property and has been available for publication by every newspaper man in Washington for nearly ten days. I have read it, or as much of it as I cared to read, and I find that it will be very useful to the purpose of the scandal mongers of Congress and to anyone who desires to attack the government of the United States and bring our army into disrepute. General Miles has deceived you. He is playing upon your credulity in order to secure notoriety and advance his interest as a presidential candidate. His report was not suppressed. Every line of it was available to every newspaper man in Washington, but the greater part of it is not what we call "news". That is, he had taken the trouble to compile every wretched story of the bad behavior of our troops since the occupation of the Philippines, most of which has been published over and over again. He has done this for the purpose of injuring the administration and the army, and you lend yourself to the conspiracy."(28)
An editorial in the Washington Star spoke of General Miles and his report very critically. It accused him of being the victim of political ambition. Then it continued:
"Nine out of ten men are of the opinion that General Miles went to the Philippines with his mind made up as to matters there. He had been in a fault-finding mood for months here at home; had been under open charges of aiding the attacks on the army and the national policies indulged in by the anti-expansionists in the Senate, and, generally, had carried himself with an aggressive shoulder against the administration. The news of all this preceded him to the east.... The cue was taken, and General Miles was stuffed to the lips with every sort of exploded accusation and stale slander directed at his country and his comrades-at-arms. And, in the spirit of his old Boston days, he turned in upon his return home an itemized account of the whole tirade.
"The soldier in his petitions to the throne of grace, should add a line of his own to the litany. From the buzzing of the presidential bee Good Lord deliver us."
Unnecessary public controversy and much unfavorable notoriety for the Anti-Imperialist League was the result of this dispute between the League and the War Department. The complete Miles report was furnished to the press associations, but it was not published in full, owing to its extreme length and to the large number of the accompanying documents. This led Mr. Herbert Welsh of Philadelphia into the error of hinting that the War Department was hiding and suppressing the report. Mr. Welsh labored under a delusion. It is evident that he became excited in the matter without first ascertaining the truth, and because of this, led other people into embarrassment. As a result he received letters ranging from sarcasm to open affront from among those who complied with the request contained in his circular.
But worst of all, the affair created in many quarters a feeling of disgust and antagonism towards the efforts of the anti-imperialists in general. That General Miles was partly responsible for the extreme agitation of Mr. Welsh, there seems little doubt and perhaps the newspapers were correct in saying that General Miles took advantage of the credulity of Mr. Welsh to advance his own political ambitions.
1. Parker Willis to Herbert Welsh, 1902 (October or November; letter undated).
2. Charles Elliot Norton to Herbert Welsh, April 21, 1902.
3. Charles Francis Adams to Herbert Welsh, May 9, 1902.
4. Charles Francis Adams to Carl Schurz, May 6, 1902.
5. Charles Francis Adams to Herbert Welsh, May 7, 1902.
6. Welsh Circular Letter, May 14, 1903.
7. Constance Goddard Dubois to H. Welsh, May 21, 1903.
8. Wm. E. Mason, to H. Welsh, May 18, 1903.
9. George F. Hoar to H. Welsh, May 18, 1903.
10. C. L. Barlett to H. Welsh, May 16, 1903.
11. Josephus Daniels to H. Welsh, May 15, 1903.
12. Thomas M. Anderson to H. Welsh, June 8, 1903.
13. Adna R. Chafee, to H. Welsh, May 16, 1903.
14. John B. Sanborn to H. Welsh, May 26, 1903.
15. George W. Curtis to H. Welsh, May 20, 1903.
16. Arthur J. Brown to Herbert Welsh, May 22, 1903.
17. Henry W. Farnum to Herbert Welsh, May 18, 1903.
18. Charles W. Eliot to Herbert Welsh, April 26, 1903.
19. Mortimer E. Cooley, to Herbert Welsh, May 21, 1903.
20. A. S. Draper to Herbert Welsh, May 18, 1903.
21. William H. Gardener to H. Welsh, May 18, 1903.
22. George B. Davis to W. G. Rice, May 21, 1903.
23. Elihu Root, to Hon. A. J. Hopkins, June 6, 1903.
24. Ibid.
25. Elihu Root to Rev. Daniel S. Tuttle.
26. Nelson A. Miles to Herbert Welsh, May 7, 1903.
27. Nelson A. Miles to Herbert Welsh, May 15, 1903.
28. William E. Curtis, to Herbert Welsh, May 10, 1903.
M. Patrick Cullinane, Liberty and Anti-Imperialism, July 4, 2007.