With all of our resources we have not as yet been able to establish a decent state of public order in the little island of Jolo. No serious minded person, familiar with the facts, with whom I have ever talked, believes for a moment that the Filipinos could establish an effective government over the Moros, or could keep them at home. They are wonderful boatmen and when once at sea in the little crafts of their own building are liable to strike the coast of the Philippine Islands at any point. When it is remembered that this coast is longer than that of the continental United States, the impossibility of adequately protecting the whole of it becomes immediately manifest. It would be always possible, under Filipino rule, for the Moros to strike defenceless towns, and where they struck the only resource of the inhabitants, whether Filipinos, Europeans or Americans, would be in speedy flight. It should be borne in mind that one Mohammedan who is earnestly desirous of being killed while fighting Christians can chase a good many unarmed citizens into the tall timber, brave though they may be! I venture here once more to express the deliberate opinion that if American control were withdrawn from these islands and some other civilized nation did not interfere to restore a decent state of public order, the Moros would resume the conquest of the Philippines which they were so actively and effectively pushing when the Spaniards compelled them to abandon it, and would slowly but none the less surely carry it through to a successful termination. The inaccuracy of Blount's statements regarding matters covered by absolutely conclusive documentary evidence is well typified by the following:-- "The Philippine Assembly, representing the whole Filipino people, and desiring to express the unanimous feeling of those people with regard to the Worcester speech, unanimously passed, soon after the speech was delivered, a set of resolutions whereof the following is a translation." [52] The resolution which he quotes was never passed by the Assembly which on February 3, 1911, four months after my Y. M. C. A. lecture, [53] and while I was absent in the United States, passed another and quite different one criticizing language "ascribed" to me, without ever making any effort to ascertain from me what was really said. I might quote the two in parallel columns, but I grow weary of showing the details of Blount's false or mistaken statements, and refer those interested to the official records which he perhaps did not take the precaution to consult.