US expelled Brits from Samar

WHEN the American pot calls the British kettle black, which is the fairer of the two?

After the US had usurped the Philippines towards the turn of the 20th century, they had to deal not only with the Filipino resistance but also with British companies that controlled the trading of hemp (abaca), the principal Filipino export product at the time.

Of course, the Americans publicly displayed considerable brutality in subduing the Filipinos. But they mainly whined against alleged excesses of British firms in their reports, and then tactfully dealt with British nationals in face-to-face situations.

However, in one instance, the Americans went overboard when a US military general expelled from Samar all four British agents of two trading companies - three belonging to Warner, Barnes and Co. and one to Smith, Bell and Co. The expulsion was made in mid-October 1901, during the hysteria in the aftermath of the Balangiga Massacre on Sept. 28, 1901.

Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, the American military-governor for the unorganized provinces of the Philippines, defended his subordinate’s action by clarifying that the British agents committed "violation of the laws of war" by supplying the natives with funds.

But the acting British consul in Manila, named Sinclair, held the opinion that the expulsion would not have been carried out had it not been for the rebels’ success in Balangiga. He surmised that the drastic methods (diplomatese for the "kill and burn" policy) used by US military authorities to restore their prestige in Samar rendered the presence of independent witnesses undesirable.

How was the Samar episode presented in the official reports?

James A. LeRoy, the secretary of a member of the Philippine Commission in 1901, mentioned about the US naval blockade of the hemp ports of southern Luzon and the islands of Leyte and Samar, which were being used by the Filipino resistance as centers for tax-gathering operations.

LeRoy reported that the corrupting conditions of the Filipino management of interisland commerce were due to the large trading firms with headquarters in Manila and branches throughout the archipelago.

He tactfully referred to the British trading companies as those, which "were living and directing their operations under the American flag, (yet did not) cease their connections with the Filipino government."

He also charged that the British firms "purchased immunity for their operations in the provinces by acting as the Manila bankers of the insurgents, by paying taxes to the latter for their inter-island traffic, and even by direct contributions to the insurgent cause."

On his part, Sinclair sent several dispatches to the home office in London, explaining the British side of the Samar episode. He was strongly of the opinion that the charges against the four British agents originated in rice being handed to the rebels by persons (middlemen) who had dealings in hemp with the two firms involved, and who had managed to obtain permits from the US authorities to buy rice and take this item into the Samar countryside.

From information he had gathered during a trip to Samar to investigate the issue, the consul was convinced that the British firms’ native "buyers" had paid blackmail to the rebels to save their lives.

However, he also emphasized that the native government in Samar was undisturbed while US military operations were in progress in Luzon. They even collected taxes and the US Customs House in Manila received their clearances of vessels.

Sinclair, therefore, could not see the reason why the native middlemen should later be expected to submit to martyrdom out of loyalty to the US, whom they knew little or nothing about, or why the British firms employing them should be held responsible for their actions.

The British consul observed that the US military blockade of Samar was not very effective. Rice was being smuggled into the island on native boats from neighboring islands. Hemp was also exported from Samar in the same manner.

He particularly sensed a strong feeling of envy in American circles against the British firms in Samar, which practically controlled the hemp trade and which, owing to their having been established here for over 50 years, possessed the complete confidence of the natives.

Now, was the American pot fair and justified in calling the British kettle black?