The Question of Independence.--We have, on one hand, the assertions of rabid Spanish writers that separation from Spain was throughout the real aim of the Filipino leaders, who merely covered it under a plea for reforms (the friars say, under a false assertion that the Filipinos were opposed to them). We have, in direct opposition, the assertions of Spanish Liberals and of some Filipinos that the movement was inspired by genuine loyalty to Spain, and was only a protest and appeal for reforms even in its last phase as an outbreak in arms, 1896-98. This view was accepted by the Schurman Commission in 1899. Again, during the years from 1898 to date, when demands for independence were made upon the United States, the more radical Filipino leaders, first in insurrection, now in political agitation, have asserted that complete political independence was definitely the aim in 1896-97, and was the ideal in mind for some years before. Thus they would corroborate the assertions of the more rabid Spaniards who claimed that Rizal and all his co-workers, both in the aristocratic ranks above and in the Katipunan below, were hypocritical in their protestations of loyalty to Spain. Where does the truth lie? The fact is, one can sustain any view he prefers to take of this subject, by detached citations from documents of one sort or another. The real answer is to be found only by a careful survey of all the evidence as to Filipino activities and aspirations. We note that, when Rizal discusses the possibility of future independence for his people, he sets it as a century hence. We need not take him literally, nor, on the other hand, need we say his title was merely hypocritical, and he was insidiously inciting his people to think of immediate independence; we shall be fairer to survey his writings as a whole, probably reaching the conclusion that the independence of his people was constantly in his mind, but sober reason warned him to restrain his and their youthful impatience on the subject. In discussing Del Pilar and Rizal, it has already been pointed out how the former changed places with the younger man and became the more impatient of the two; and the connection of this growing impatience with the more violent nature of the Katipunan has been shown. So it is not enough to cite detached passages from Rizal or Del Pilar, for example, to prove either that they were just filibusters under cover of protestations or, on the contrary, that they never dreamed of independence. [173] The propagandists felt differently at different times, under the pressure sometimes of self-interest, influenced sometimes by momentary incidents or passions. It is plain that, with some of them at least, a new tone had been adopted toward Spain when, at the beginning of 1896, the manifesto of the Katipunan organ to the Filipinos bitterly exclaimed: