"Thus catholicism not only did not liberate the poor class from the tyranny of the oppressive, but with its advent in the Philippines increased the number of tyrants. Time alone, and instruction, which with it brings suaver customs, will ultimately redeem the Pariahs of the Philippines, for we see that the apostles of the peace did not find in themselves sufficient valour to battle with the oppressors, and this in times of great faith; on the contrary, they rather contributed indirectly to their misery, as we see from the foregoing." The most frequent cause, already mentioned above, from which these conditions of servitude arose, is again pointed out by Morga in the following passage: [64]-- "Loans with interest were in very common practice, excessively high rates of interest being current, so that the debt doubled and multiplied all the time during which the payment was deferred, until there was taken from the debtor what he possessed as capital, and, when ultimately nothing more was left, his person and his children." Of these statements Rizal says:-- "This is the sad truth, and so much the truth that it subsists until now. In many provinces, and in many towns, there is taking place, word for word, what Morga says, it being to be lamented that at present not only Indios [Filipinos, Tr.] continue this usury, but also the mestizos, the Spaniards, and even various priests. And it has come to this that the Government itself not only permits it, but in its turn exacts the capital and the person in payment of the debt of others, as occurs with the cabeza de barangay." It would be easy to compile passages similar to the preceding from other authors, but those given are explicit and authoritative enough to make it clear, first, that slavery existed in the Philippines at the time of the conquest as a general tribal institution of social and economical character and in minutely regulated form; and, second, that although it lost, with the advent of the Spaniards, the character of an institution, and indeed was formally abolished by early edicts from Spain, it continued to exist as an unauthorized practice, so that Rizal, writing at the close of the nineteenth century could say that slaves still existed in many parts of the country. In a statement recently published in the New York Evening Post, Señor Quezon, Resident Delegate from the Philippines to Congress, has said:-- "Since there is not, and there never was, slavery in the territory inhabited by the Christian Filipinos, which is the part of the Islands subject to the legislative control of the Assembly, this House has refused to concur in the anti-slavery bill passed by the Philippine Commission." Whom will the American public believe, Morga, the historian, and Rizal, the Filipino patriot, or Quezon, the Filipino politician?