L. Aycart--La campaña de Filipinas. Recuerdos é impresiones de un médico militar (Madrid, 1900). Contains some charts and some interesting data on the military campaign as such. Manuel Sastrón--La insurrección en Filipinas y guerra hispano-americana (Madrid, 1901). [155] Written by a Spanish official in Manila during this time, and composed of accounts and documents drawn mainly from the press of Manila. It is, however, the most useful arsenal of data. Major John S. Mallory--The Philippine Insurrection, 1896-1898 (appendix viii to report of Major-General G. W. Davis, commanding the division of the Philippines, in Report of War Department, 1903, vol. 3, pp. 399-425). A non-critical compilation, mostly from Sastrón and Monteverde y Sedano. It is, however, by far the best review of the 1896-97 insurrection as such that is available in English, and is a fairly satisfactory account for one who cannot consult the Spanish sources. Far better than Foreman's account. M. Arroyo Vea-Murguía--Defensa del sitio de Naic (Filipinas). Antes y despues. (Madrid, 1904.) Of little value. The Pact of Biak-na-bató.--Purposely, the word "treaty," so often applied to this transaction, is here avoided; for, apart from technical objections to a word that applies to agreements between sovereign powers, this was no treaty in any sense of the word. There was some mystery surrounding the negotiations by which the insurgent chiefs surrendered a few hundred nondescript firearms and retired to Hongkong; untrue or half-true charges were bandied back and forth, for political effect, in the Cortes and the press of Spain; and, of the chief actors in the affair, only Primo de Rivera has given his account--perhaps not with entire frankness. [156] Aguinaldo has confined his statements on the subject to the most brief assertions of a general nature [157] to the effect that reforms by the Spanish government were promised. Primo de Rivera categorically denies this; while Pedro A. Paterno, the go-between, has made no statement at all during the nine years that have passed since the conflicting statements have been before the public, involving directly the question of his own veracity and good faith. Primo de Rivera is an ex parte witness, to be sure; but his statements upon the more vital points involved are corroborated by the very insurgent documents on this subject captured by the American army in 1899 and now in the War Department at Washington. [158] Primo de Rivera says that, when Paterno presented a paper early in the negotiations containing a full program of reforms, [159] he rejected the document absolutely, saying he could not discuss such matters with the insurgent chiefs, that the Spanish government would accord such reforms as it thought wise, and he could only interpose his good offices to make recommendations in that respect. The copy of this document now in the War Department at Washington shows the clauses about reform to have been crossed out.