On the other hand, Major Wm. H. Bishop, of the 20th Kansas, was credited in a soldier's letter written home, which first came to light in this country, with killing unarmed prisoners during the advance on Caloocan. The charges originated with a private of that regiment. Major Bishop denied the charges. [208] An investigation followed, in the course of which somebody made an innuendo, or charge--it is not important which--that other officers used their influence to prevent a full ventilation of the matter, specifically, General Funston, then Colonel of the 20th Kansas, and Major Metcalf, of the same regiment. These last two also made a most vigorous general denial, and nothing whatever was established against them. The whole matter was finally disposed of by being forwarded to the War Department at Washington by General Otis on July 13, 1899, some six months after the occurrences alleged, with the remark that he (General Otis) "doubted the wisdom of a court-martial" of the soldier who had made the charge against Major Bishop, "as it would give the insurgent authorities a knowledge of what was taking place, and they would assert positively that our troops practised inhumanities, whether the charges could be proven or not" and that they would use the incident "as an excuse to defend their own barbarities." [209] The last endorsement on the papers preceding General Otis's final endorsement was one by Colonel Crowder, now (1912) Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, in which he said: "I am not convinced from a careful reading of this report, that Private Brenner has made a false charge against Captain Bishop"; adding that "considerations of public policy, sufficiently grave to silence every other demand, require that no further action be taken in this case." [210] The "considerations of public policy" were of course those indicated in General Otis's final endorsement on the papers, already quoted. They were compellingly controlling, in my judgment, independently of the merits. Washing one's soiled linen in public is never advisable, and placing a weapon in your enemy's hand in time of war is at least equally unwise. Some shreds of this once much mooted matter doubtless still linger in the public memory. It has been thus briefly ventilated here solely to trace the genesis of the bitterness of that war, and of numerous later barbarities avenged in kind. The bitterness thus early begun grew as the war went on, until every time a hapless Filipino peasant soldier speaking only two or three words of Spanish would falsely explain, when captured, that he was a non-combatant, an amigo (friend), it usually at once filled the captor with vivid recollections of slain comrades, and of rumored or sometimes proven mutilation of their bodies after death, and these reflections would at once fill him with a yearning desire to blow the top of the amigo's head off, whether he yielded to the desire or not. Of no instance where he did so yield am I aware.