The Anti-Imperialist League and the Senate Investigations
The Senate Investigating Committee on the Philippines was composed of Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, as chairman, William B. Allison of Iowa, Redfield Proctor of Vermont, Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana, Julius C. Burrows of Michigan, Louis E. McComas of Maryland, Charles H. Dietrich of Nebraska, and Eugene Hale of Maine, all Republicans. The minority party in the Senate was represented by Joseph L. Rawlins of Utah, Fred T. Dubois of Ohio, Edward W. Carmack of Tennessee, and Thomas M. Patterson of Colorado.(1) To these men was intrusted the investigation of affairs concerning the Philippines in 1902 and 1903.
While government officials busied themselves gathering information regarding the occupation of the newly-acquired territories, the Anti-Imperialist League also appointed a committee with aim to supplement, if possible, the work of the government. This body proposed to gather unofficial data regarding the Americans in the Philippines for the purpose of presenting their findings for the consideration of the American people and their representatives. The Anti-Imperialist Philippine Investigation Committee, appointed April 28, 1902, was composed of Charles Francis Adams and Moorfield Storey of Boston, Carl Schurz and Charles Foster Peabody of New York, Edwin Burritt Smith of Chicago, and Herbert Welsh of Philadelphia. It was Mr. Welsh who actually directed this phase of the League's activities. The financial problems of the committee were put into the hands of George Foster Peabody and William H. Baldwin.(2)
Andrew Carnegie's name at first appeared among those of the members of the investigating committee of the League, but he never actively served in it. He did, however, contribute two thousand dollars which were used for a purpose which he later disapproved. In a letter to Mr. Herbert Welsh, he wrote:
"My cashier sent you the Two Thousand Dollars promised, but with it I told him to say that I was not in sympathy with your work because I believe it was calculated to defeat the greater end which we have in view.... Please send the money to the proper authority of the Society and let the Society apportion it as they please. I could not give money for any special work, but I give it to the Anti-Imperialist Society as a body."(3)
Andrew Carnegie did not approve of Mr. Welsh's criticisms of the army, because he believed that war inevitably carries with it atrocities disapproved in time of peace; but he sympathized with the work of the Anti-Imperialist League upon general principles.(4) He believed in the sincerity of the administration on its Philippine policy and was friendly towards it. Because of an article in the North American Review of May, 1902, in which he disapproved of colonization beyond the seas, Mr. Carnegie has often been quoted as an ardent anti-imperialist. His position on this point has been exaggerated for two reasons: first, because he belonged to the Republican Party, and second, because he was one of the most important American financiers. His whole attitude is best shown in his confidential letter to Charles Francis Adams explaining why he refrained from signing the League's petitions regarding the Philippines. The letter follows:
"I have not wired to sign my name for this reason....
"The President has written asking me to come to him either at Washington or Oyster Bay or where-ever he is, upon my return, as he wishes 'to confer upon present state of the Philippines.'
"Now I believe that President McKinley's last interview proved to me he was thinking in the right direction ... so is President Roosevelt. I believe I can do more good by abstaining from further action publicly after my outburst in the North American Review.
"That President Roosevelt would not like to see the Filipinos independent and our Republic out of the mess, I cannot believe. Now let us see if we cannot help him. What may be our duty next presidential election is another matter.
"Meanwhile, I am going to do what I can, like Senator Hoar, to get our party right.
"Should like Messrs. Schurz and Welsh to understand my position."(5)
Mr. Carnegie's subsequent attitude regarding the Philippines was that of the letter quoted. That he was unable to convince his party regarding his earlier beliefs in colonization is apparent. As to whether he had been swayed by President Roosevelt and others, we do not have proof.
From the very outset, the work of the Anti-Imperialist Investigating Committee had for its purpose and immediate objective the discovery whether the stories regarding the abuses of the American army in the Philippines had any foundation. Representatives of the Committee worked in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Alabama, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and the west coast. Other anti-imperialists made un-official investigations of their own. Soldiers and officers were interviewed, some of them having been brought to Washington at the expense of the League, to appear as witnesses before the Senate Investigating Committee. Mr. Matthew K. Sniffen traveled far and near for this committee. He had assistants everywhere, some of them receiving little compensation, a great many working gratis. An organized propaganda was launched in Washington, where Congressmen were flooded with anti-imperialist literature that were not always welcomed.(6)
At Washington the Anti-Imperialist League was represented by its secretary, Erving Winslow, assisted by Dr. William A. Croffutt, the president of the Anti-Imperialist League in the capital. Such men as the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and officers who came to Washington were interviewed.(7) Much of the publicity work of the League at this period was given to Mr. H. Parker Willis, who kept in close touch with Mr. Herbert Welsh. The importance of Mr. Willis's efforts at this stage of the Anti-Imperialist campaign cannot be over-estimated. He was not an avowed leader among the anti-imperialists but simply a young newspaper man, intelligent and alert; yet, he must be credited for many of the propaganda policies which were followed by Herbert Welsh. He worked incessantly to procure publicity for the League. He was employed to write articles regularly for the newspapers as it was believed a wise policy to keep the question alive before the public.(8) Messrs. LeRoy Smith, Matthew K. Sniffen, and Elwood Bergy worked with Mr. Willis. These men not only brought witnesses to those officials in the government who could be induced to see them and hear what they had to tell, but also exerted no little effort in lobbying.(9) It should not be forgotten, however, that these men were employed by the Anti-Imperialist League under the direction of Herbert Welsh.
The first memorial issued by the Anti-Imperialist Investigating Committee was addressed to the Senate of the United States, under date of June 12, 1902. It asked for the resumption of the investigations made during the previous session of Congress, and for a more thorough examination not only of those officers and soldiers already officially tried, but also of all the records of the War Department. It also asked for greater publicity for the findings so that the people of the country might be kept informed as to the activities of its army. On July 22, the committee forwarded a memorial to the President of the United States, relating to "marked severities", which to the anti-imperialists meant abuses in the Philippines. An additional memorial on the same subject was sent to the President, September 6th, following. Still another was sent to the Senate in February, 1903.
The first memorial asked for further investigation and cited cases yet unexamined. According to the petitioners these cases had been brought to the attention of the War Department, but with no apparent result. The Anti-Imperialist League Investigating Committee claimed it was ready to furnish names of those who were willing to testify when called. It also asked for examination of the proceedings of courts-martial held in the Philippines, the findings of which had been disapproved either by the commanding general or by the President, adding that "only by thorough inquiry can the country learn why results so unsatisfactory to the commander-in-chief are so regularly reached by these military-courts." Publication of the reports was asked by the anti-imperialists as the only means of showing whether the honor of the army had been unjustly assailed. The memorial further demanded that concealment should not be used either to keep the truth from the public, or to palliate the offences of the guilty. It insisted that investigation be made in the Philippines, and that the Filipinos be permitted to give their testimony as to the desires and needs of their people, in order that the best possible relief might be afforded to those who had suffered from calamities brought about by war, pestilence and starvation. Finally, the Anti-Imperialist representatives asked that the investigation be not made during the session of Congress alone, but continued "until it is fully completed."
The memorandum to President Roosevelt of July 22, 1902, expressed approval and commendation of the President's "review" of court-martial cases regarding certain army officers in active service in the islands, but complained of unnecessary loss of lives there. It said that "out of a total population in a single district of 300,000, not less than 100,000 perished." It protested against repeated refusals to give quarter to prisoners in the conflict against the natives, of the use of "water torture", kidnapping, murder, robbery and so forth.(10)
The letter sent to President Roosevelt on September 6, 1902, complained of his silence on the petition of July 22, 1902, and offered to bring witnesses to testify as to the truth of the anti-imperialists' accusation against the army. That of February, 1903, specifically asked for a more thorough investigation and hearing of the Father Augustin case and of the conduct of General Funston while in the Philippines.
The anti-imperialist witnesses were not called by the Senate Investigating Committee to testify before it, but since some of them had been brought to Washington at the expense of the League, an open meeting was held in the office of Senator Carmack on February 26, 1903,(11) where the witnesses were heard.
When the Senate began, early in 1902, its Philippine investigations, the anti-imperialists tried to put pressure upon them to allow Mr. Moorfield Storey to serve as a cross-examiner for the committee. The effort proved in vain. Senator Bacon said that there never had been any precedent in employing an outsider as a cross-examiner in a Senate investigation,(12) a fact which disappointed many anti-imperialists.(13)
One of the unpleasant fights growing out of the Senate investigations was that with regard to giving news to the public. Many of the anti-imperialists believed that information concerning the investigation was suppressed by the Administration and its agents for the purpose of deliberately deceiving the people as to the truth of what had occurred in the Philippines. Secretary Root seemed to be the target of this criticism, of whom Carl Schurz said:
"I am deeply convinced, and that conviction is based on documentary evidence, that Secretary Root has for a long time been unscrupulously and systematically seeking to deceive the country. It is positively certain that all the while he was perfectly informed of what was going on in the Philippines.... I have absolutely no confidence in him, and I cannot simulate any. If I tried I should break down in the attempt. For the benefit of President Roosevelt I am willing to suppose that Secretary Root sought to keep him in the dark as well as the people. I might say very nearly the same thing of Lodge. Now these two men are the principal advisers of the President. To save themselves they are bound to carry on the systematic deception by concealment and falsification as far as they can."(14)
With a number of influential persons entertaining such beliefs it was inevitable that a public controversy should soon arise. On April 11, 1902, Mr. Herbert Welsh wrote a letter of inquiry to Senator Lodge, to which the latter replied(15) that the Associated Press, the Scripps-McRae Association, and the Sun Press Association were admitted to the hearings of the Senate Investigating Committee, and that these newspapers gave the news to the world. Besides, Senator Lodge said that anyone could secure copies of the hearings for the asking, and that the reason why the people did not get detailed accounts of the proceedings was that the newspapers did not care to give space to the subject.(16)
Mr. H. Parker Willis differed with Senator Lodge regarding the ease with which information concerning the investigation could be obtained by the press. He said:
"While of course it is true, as they say, that the copies of testimony can be had for the asking on the day following the giving of the testimony, there are two facts which should be borne in mind regarding the distribution. Such a distribution is of no service whatever, except to people who are here in Washington and who take the trouble to go to the Philippine Committee room and ask for the copies, or else, who, living elsewhere, know to whom to write and do actually write for copies. The distribution of copies is absolutely of no service to reporters and correspondents, in as much as their papers will not, on the average tolerate telegraphic despatches concerning events which have happened a day or two earlier in the sessions of the Committee."
The procedure followed deprived newspaper reporters of the opportunity to send fresh telegraphic news, and according to Mr. Willis, "The situation produces an injustice which is at once dangerous and subtle."(17)
Because of the efforts which Mr. Welsh exerted in trying to prove that colonialism bred cruelty in the American soldiers, the Anti-Imperialist League spent over $10,000(18) for these investigations. It may be said, however, that the efforts of the League brought no newer proofs of the abuses of the army in the Philippines than were already known. The cases investigated were abuses supposed to have been committed two, three, even four years previous. Men supposed to have been connected therewith or who were witnesses thereto, were either dead, in the Philippines, or retired, or their whereabouts were unknown. Those who could be reached were often reluctant to be connected with the case, and some of those who talked were seemingly unreliable. That the Anti-Imperialist League, through its Investigating Committee on the Philippines, and particularly Mr. Herbert Welsh and his assistants, did a great deal of work honestly trying to clear up the delicate question of the conduct of the army in the Philippines, cannot be doubted.(19) It is, likewise, evident that in their zeal for their work, the committee and the anti-imperialists listened to all sorts of stories many of which proved to be mere hearsays. A frequent method by which returned soldiers and others dodged responsibility for their statements was that of giving evidence "in confidence". Senator Hoar was evidently exasperated by such a method, for he wrote to Herbert Welsh upon receipt of a letter from J. LeRoy Smith purporting to be "in confidence," as follows
"This is a type of a good many letters I am getting from different parts of the country; one man tells the story about the water torture, another about the reconcentrado camps, but they say all this is in strict confidence. I get it from a friend who is a soldier and won't have his name mentioned and another says my son who is in the army writes me so and so. But you must not mention my name. Now either these things are high crimes or they are not. If they are, I do not like any gentlemen tell me of them in confidence for my own information. Am I expected to act upon information which I cannot cite for my defence? I do not wish to receive confidence of that kind."
Few could be more sincere than the veteran Senator, who, while not a member of the Anti-Imperialist League was the champion of anti-imperialism in Congress.
1. Senate Document, 205, 57th Congress, 1st Session.
2. Letter of Charles Francis Adams to Herbert Welsh, May 1, 1902. The rest of the committee acted merely as advisers, Charles Francis Adams being the most active of them all.
3. Andrew Carnegie to Herbert Welsh, February 7, 1903.
4. Herbert Welsh to Moorfield Storey, February 10, 1903.
5. Andrew Carnegie to Charles Francis Adams, 1903, Skibo Castle, Dornock, Sutherland.
6. Diaries, Reports, Matthew K. Sniffen.
7. W. A. Croffut to Herbert Welsh, November 11, 1902, March 21, 1903, May 14 June 2, and June 16.
8. H. Parker Willis to Herbert Welsh, September 23, 1902; Feb. 5, 1903.
9. Diaries and Reports of Matthew K. Sniffen to H. Welsh.
10. See Marked Severities.
11. Matthew K. Sniffen to Henry Cabot Lodge, Feb. 25, 1903; Matthew K. Sniffen to Herbert Welsh, Feb. 25, 1903.
12. Senator Bacon to Walter LeComte Stevens, Virginia, February 26, 1902. Senator T. M. Patterson to James H. Ecob, Philadelphia, March 3, 1902. Carl Schurz to Herbert Welsh, Feb. 11, 1902. Moorfield Storey to Herbert Welsh, Feb. 12, 1002; March 17, 1902. C. B. Wilby to Herbert Welsh, Feb. 14, 1902. Charles H. Norton to Herbert Welsh, Feb. 7, 1902; Feb. 11, 1902.
13. President George H. Denny, Virginia to Senator Thomas H. Martin, Feb. 17, 1902.
14. Carl Schurz to Charles Francis Adams, May 7, 1902.
15. Herbert Welsh to Henry Cabot Lodge, April. 11, 1902; Henry Cabot Lodge to Herbert Welsh, April 17, 1902.
16. See Miles Case.
17. H. Parker Willis to Herbert Welsh, April 21, 1902.
18. Figure estimate given by Herbert Welsh.
19. After two years of strenuous work, Mr. Welsh had a nervous breakdown.
M. Patrick Cullinane, Liberty and Anti-Imperialism, July 14, 2007.