The American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912Blount, James H. (James Henderson)
History
The American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912
Blount, James H. (James Henderson)
Philippines -- History -- 1898-1946; Philippines -- Politics and government -- 1898-1935
our Constitution except the right of jury trial and the individual
right to go armed--"bear arms." It specifically said in section 5:
No law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
It hardly needs argument to show that to bundle the rural population
of a whole district out of house and home, and make them come to town
to live indefinitely on such public charity as may drain through the
itching fingers of impecunious town officials, abandoning meantime
their growing crops, and the household effects they cannot bring with
them, is depriving people of their property, and restraining them
of their liberty, without due process of law. In fact, in 1905, in
the case of Barcelon vs. Baker, vol. v., Philippine Report, page 116,
during an insurrection in Batangas, to control which, the presidential
election of 1904 being then safely over, the writ of habeas corpus
had been suspended and martial law declared, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines held that detention of people as reconcentrados under
such circumstances "for the purpose of protecting them" was not an
illegal restraint of their liberty, because the ordinary law had been
suspended. This decision held it to be both the prerogative and the
duty of the Governor-General to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
when the public safety so required.
I refuse to believe for a moment that President Taft, the former
wise and just judge, in whom is now vested by law the mighty power
of filling vacancies on the highest court in this great country of
ours, will seriously contend that that reconcentration law is not in
direct violation of the above quoted section of the Act of Congress
of July 1, 1902, for the government of the Philippines, and therefore
null and void. The truth is, it was a piece of careless legislation,
dealing with conditions that were essentially war conditions, under
a government which was forever vowing that peace conditions existed,
and determined not to admit the contrary. The civil government was
like Lot's wife. It could not look back.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account