tion of the right asserted by the church, that there has been no title shown by the representative of the church which proves such right to the property of the said seminary. This report of the judge of the superior provost court is corroborated by an indorsement of General Hughes, commanding Department of the Visayas.

With regard to the possession of the building in question, it appears from the ninth indorsement that from the completion of the building, about 1873, until 1898 the building was occupied by the Paulist Fathers as a Catholic school or college; from the 1st until about the 20th of November by the Spanish troops as barracks, and from November, 1898, until February, 1899, by the Filipino insurgents as barracks.

It is possible that the Paulist Fathers had possession of the building in question in the name of the Catholic Church, but it is also possible that they had its possession in the name of the congregation as private property,

Furthermore, a possession must be actual in order that it may have legal effect. A former possession is of no avail unless it is proved that the actual possessor possesses the thing in the name of the former possessor or that the former has been dispossessed by force by the latter. Even supposing that the Paulist Fathers had possession of the seminary in the name of the Catholic Church, in order for such possession to supply the want of title and for the Catholic Church to be entitled to the right to the above-mentioned edifice it would be necessary to prove that the later possession had by the Spanish Government through its troops was not an adverse possession or by virtue of its own right, for in default of such proof and in default of title the later possession by the Spanish Government would exclude the former possession by the church.

It is possible that the Spanish Government had possession of the building by virtue of a gratuitous or nongratuitous concession of the church, while, upon the other hand, it is not strange that the building had been possessed by the Spanish Government by virtue of its own right and in the character of owner.

From the foregoing considerations, and the facts as they appear from the investigations made, in the opinion of the undersigned there is no reasonable ground upon which to base a recognition of the right of possession to the Jaro Seminary until the Catholic Church shows unquestionably that the Paulist Fathers did not have the possession of the building in the name of the congregation, but in the name of the church, and that the possession of the building by the Spanish Government was not an adverse possession.

Such is the opinion which I have the honor to submit to your consideration.
Very respectfully,

EXHIBIT NO. 2.

GREGORIO ARANETA,
Solicitor-General.

MANILA, January 24, 1903.

The CIVIL GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:

I, Domingo Viera, presbyter of the congregation of San Vicente de Paul, in representation of the bishop of the diocese of Jaro, appear and represent that, on the 30th day of December last, under pretext of cheering the Philippines, by reason of the anniversary of the death of Doctor Rizal, seditious cries were directed against the bishop and the three white priests residing in that city in the plaza and the streets of Iloilo; that on the 31st of the said month the same cries were repeated in the city of Jaro against me and my two companions residing therein, with the aggravating circumstances in the latter case of the seditious being headed by the president and justice of the peace and other prominent persons, accompanied by eight policemen with revolvers.

That the bishop having desired, in the exercise of his legitimate right, to remove from the parishes of Jaro, Miagao, and Zarraga the priests in charge thereof, the latter have refused to leave them, instigating the prominent people of the said towns to decline to receive the new parish priests appointed by the bishop, threatening to close the churches and parsonages and take possession of the same.

That this state of sedition in the native clergy and the leading citizens is not only prejudicial to the church and to its representatives in the diocese of Jaro, but also, perhaps, to the public order.

That, having applied to the military authorities requesting protection, they declared they were unable to grant it, being without their jurisdiction; and, it being impossible to request same of the local authorities of Iloilo and Jaro, the undersigned has been compelled to come to this capital and appear before you, confidently believing that you will cause the latter to perform their duties with respect to the protection of aliens who are under the protection of the flag of the United States.

DOMINGO VIERA.

Hon. MARTIN DELGADO,
Governor of the Province of Iloilo, Iloilo, P. I.

MANILA, P. I., January 29, 1902.

SIR: There has been filed with this office the complaint of Domingo Viera, presbyter of the congregation of San Vicente de Paul, setting forth that he and his associates in the city of Jaro have been subjected to insults and threats by the inhabitants of that town, and that the president and local authorities were prominent among the people thus engaged. A copy of this petition is herewith inclosed for your inspection.

I also notice in the daily papers references to the strained relations between these padres in Jaro and the people, which it is stated are liable to culminate in violence. These statements are confirmed by conversation with the Filipino members of the Commission.

The fact that the friars are unwelcome to large numbers of the people in that and other towns of the archipelago is of course well known to me, but it is well for the authorities charged with the duty of preserving peace and order to keep clearly before them the respective rights, under the law, of these padres and the people.

One of the fundamental principles upon which American government is based is the complete separation of church and state; that is, that no church is allowed to receive the support of the Government, either directly from the public Treasury or indirectly by levying a tax on the people for its support. There is another principle equally well established, and that is that every man has the inherent right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, which includes the right to preach and teach the religious doctrines in which he believes. So long as he confines himself to this he violates no law. His doctrine may be foolish or false and may be distasteful to a large majority of the people, and hence he may be unpopular with them and be regarded as a dangerous character. Nevertheless, he is entitled to the full protection of his person and property by those officials charged with the maintenance of peace and order and the enforcement of the law. It is to be kept in mind and thoroughly understood that under the existing government, whatever may have been the situation in the past, it is now impossible for any priest or religious teacher to exact contributions from anyone against his will, or to compel his attendance on divine services or to compel him to send his children to the parochial schools. In short, the people of Jaro and the Philippine Archipelago are at liberty to do just as they please in all these matters. They are absolutely free agents. If any man is induced by threats of excommunication or otherwise to do what he does not desire, he has no one to blame but himself. Certainly it does not warrant violence against the priest. Governor Taft some time since addressed a communication to the Hon. Wallis O. Clark, governor of Tarlac, defining at some length the respective rights of priests and people, a copy of which I herewith inclose for your perusal and guidance and also for the information of the municipal authorities of Jaro. This communication so completely covers the entire subject that it need not be further discussed here.

You will readily understand from what has been said above that the assembling of a mob of people and their jeering at and threatening the priests of Jaro was illegal, and that, especially if the president and police participated therein, they were not only guilty of an illegal act, but of official misconduct as well. It is my desire that you should make this known to the municipal authorities of Jaro; and should there be a repetition of such misconduct you are authorized, and it will be your duty under the provincial government act, to suspend the president and prefer charges against him, as is provided in act No. 314, amendatory of the provincial government act. It is my hope, however, that this will not be necessary, and that it will be sufficient to call the attention of the president and officials of Jaro to the contents of this letter and that they will govern themselves accordingly.

Lawlessness at any time in a community is to be deprecated and is productive of unfortunate results, but now it would be especially so for the Filipino people. The Congress of the United States is in session and has before it the recommendations of the Commision, which, among other things, include the establishment of a permanent form of government for these islands. If Congress should adopt our views, the government established will include a popular representative assembly composed of Filipinos. Objection is being made by those who do not believe in the capacity of the Filipinos for self-government, or even partial self-government, that such legislation is premature and unwise. We do not believe this, and Governor Taft is now in Washington for the express purpose of urging the adoption of the views of the Commission. Any outbreak or serious disturbance would tend to weaken his influence and strengthen the opposition.

Among the subjects which the Governor will take up in Washington will be the friar question, and I have every reason to believe that it will be settled in a manner

satisfactory to all concerned. I am sure you will readily understand the necessity of the maintenance of order in your province, and the importance of your exerting your official and personal influence to allay as far as possible any excitement which now exists in the town of Jaro or elsewhere, or which may hereafter arise.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

LUKE E. WRight,

Acting Civil Governor.

OFFICE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,

Manila, P. I., February 10, 1902.

Official copy respectfully furnished by direction of the acting civil governor to the chief of Philippines constabulary, Manila, P. I., requesting that all constabulary officers be advised as to the status between the church and state in order that there may be no confusion in this regard.

Father DOMINGO VIERA,

A. W. FERGUSSON,
Executive Secretary.

MANILA, P. I., February 10, 1902.

Presbyter of the Congregation of San Vicente de Paul, Manila, P. I. SIR: In reply to your letter of January 24, I have the honor, by direction of the acting civil governor, to transmit herewith a copy of a letter sent to the governor of Iloilo. Very respectfully, A. W. FERGUSSON, Executive Secretary.

The following is a summary translation of the testimony taken in the case and transmitted to the civil governor by the provincial governor with his letter of March 7, which follows later:

TESTIMONY IN REGARD TO THE CHARGES MADE BY FATHER VIERA, GIVEN BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OF JARO IN FEBRUARY, 1902.

BENITO JALBUENA (municipal president at the time of the alleged disturbances) testified: That, to celebrate the passing of the old year and the advent of the new, he, just as any private individual might have done, arranged with some of his friends to engage a band of music and an orchestra to parade the streets of the town on the occasion indicated; that, at a little after 11 on the night of the 31st, the party, composed of the band and orchestra, children carrying many-colored lights and banners, others dressed up as princes and princesses, a number of private persons, the witness and many of his friends, among them Juan Ladesma, Zeferino Jiz de Ortega, and the American, George Knowles, left the house of the witness and began to parade the principal streets of the town; that no policeman took part in the manifestation or festival, and that therefore the statement that eight of them took part is untrue, especially with revolvers, when there was not a single one, since all the police were on duty that night just as on other nights; that, during the parade, those taking part in the manifestation did not cease to emit cries of joy; that, when the procession reached the corner of Calle Real and Calle Platerias, near the residence of Father Viera and his companions, witness noted a few cries of "Out with Father Viera," to which the multitude responded with vivas; that, aside from the cries referred to, it is untrue that Father Viera and his companions were insulted or threatened, since the procession did not even stop in the place referred to, but, while the cries in question were being given, continued its journey to the house of the witness, where a dance was prepared for the entertainment of the people, to celebrate more joyfully the exit of the old year and the entrance of the new.

That there does not exist any unpleasantness or enmity between witness and Father Viera and his companions, but that, on the contrary, witness formerly believed himself the best friend of these priests, since his house was perhaps the only one where, after the revolution, these priests, and especially Father Viera, were in the habit of visiting.

That the principal and only object of the festival was to enliven the place on the night in question; and, as a proof of this, when some persons, unknown to the witness, shouted "Out with Father Viera," the multitude answered with vivas.

That, while it is true that the determination of the bishop to remove the curate (cura) of this pueblo had made the neighbors indignant, still the festival that was organized had nothing whatever to do with that feeling of indignation.

That the justice of the peace did not assist at the festival; that, before the procession set out, witness sent him a message inviting him to take part, but received an answer to the effect that he (the justice) was tired and so excused himself from coming.

ANTONIO BUENCONEJO, chief of police, testified: That it was untrue that eight policemen, with or without revolvers, took part in the parade; that, by reason of the few policemen available, witness had divided up the force into patrols of two men each, which patrols, at a little after 11 o'clock, he found to be at their respective posts on the night in question; that neither he nor any other member of the police force took part in the procession, but that its nature and purpose was well known generally.

(Here witness gives details in regard to its nature and purpose, substantiating in that regard the testimony of the preceding witness.)

GEORGE KNOWLES's testimony is a repetition in different words of that given by the first witness in regard to the object, nature, and incidents of the parade, and the failure of the justice of the peace and the policemen to take part in the festival.

Policeman DOROTEO JALLORINA testified that on the night in question he was on duty with Paulino Silva at the corner of Platerias and Zarraga and saw the procession. His testimony is to the same effect as that of the preceding witnesses in regard to the nature of the parade and the behavior of those who took part, its object and purpose, and the absence from the procession of the justice of the peace and the eight policemen with revolvers.

Policeman PAULINO SILVA, the patrol companion of the last witness, testified in every respect identically with him.

ZEFERINO JIZ DE ORTEGA testified to the same effect as the preceding witnesses in regard to the purpose and nature of the parade and the conduct of those who took part, the presence of the municipal president in his private capacity only, and the absence of the justice of the peace and the eight policemen with revolvers.

BENITO LOPEZ testified that he did not take part in the procession, as he was tired; that during the procession he was at the club, as will be confirmed by those who were there with him, among them Charles Visner, Arthur Thompson, Arsenio Jimenez, Magdalenio Jarrellano, and Salvador Legenda.

Some twenty policemen, among them one sergeant and two corporals, being separately interrogated, testified that, with the exception of those who were sick in bed, they were all on duty on the night in question and did not take part in the procession, and that they believed the occasion of the new year to be the object or reason of the demonstration.

JUAN LEDESMA testified to the same effect as the preceding witnesses in regard to the object and nature of the parade and the behavior of the multitude, the absence of the justice and the eight policemen with revolvers, and the presence, in his private capacity, of the then president, Benito Jalbuena.

The CIVIL GOVERNOR PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Manila.

ILOILO, March 7, 1902.

SIR: Referring to your communication of the 29th of January last in regard to the grounds of the complaint filed by the Paulist father, Domingo Viera, I believe it to be my duty to state that Father Viera has endeavored to injure the good name of the authorities at Jaro and Iloilo by presenting the facts in a manner very different from their true nature, qualifying as seditious acts which were in no sense such.

Before receiving your letter I had been informed of what had taken place in Jaro and had also made private investigations, with the object of finding out the true nature of the events; but, as all reports I received agreed in showing that the incident in question was not of a political nature at all, nor in any sense seditious, I took no action in the premises. Upon receipt of your letter, I made fresh investigations, this time officially, to see if my former information was correct or not. Fortunately for this province, both my private and my public sources of information agree in proving that neither in Iloilo nor in Jaro have any seditious acts been committed.

What happenend in Jaro (as appears from the investigations made by the municipal officers of that place, to whom your communication was referred, the results of which investigations I have the honor to transmit herewith, and as appears also from the investigations conducted by me) was as follows: On the last day of the year 1901, to celebrate the coming of the new year, there was organized in the house of Señor Benito Jalbuena, then municipal president, a kind of procession with lights, children masked in the costumes of princes and princesses, and a band of music and an orchestra engaged by Mr. Jalbuena and various friends of his, to parade the

streets of the town and enliven the neighborhood. Expansion-the desire to have a pleasant time-was the only object sought in organizing the procession described. At 11 o'clock at night the party, composed of many private individuals, left the house of Señor Jalbuena and gaily paraded the principal streets of the town. Upon reaching the house where Father Viera resides a few shouted, "Out with Father Viera," to which the multitude answered with vivas; but the procession did not stop, nor were any threats or insults offered to Father Viera and his companions.

From the investigation made by me, I am thoroughly convinced that neither the justice of the peace nor the members of the police force, either with or without guns (revolvers), took part in the procession, and that Señor Jalbuena was present simply in his private capacity; that no threats nor insults were offered; that the proceedings were in no sense of a political or seditious character, for, although it is true that some persons shouted, "Out with Father Viera," the cry was nothing more than one of those incidents which, while always unpleasant, it is impossible to prevent in the course of even the most lawful of ceremonies where a number of persons of all classes, from the most illustrious to the most ignorant, take part. And above all, the cries against the father did not form any part of the plans of the party, nor were they authorized by the president nor by the majority of those who composed the party, which, instead of seconding the cries, answered with vivas. And it is painful that a priest, like Father Viera, should falsify the facts in such a manner.

Regarding what took place at Iloilo, it is absolutely false that, during the civil procession which took place on the 30th of December in honor of Rizal, there were any seditious cries in the street against the bishop or the friars, as is stated by Father Viera. Of this the undersigned was an eyewitness, since, together with other members of the provincial board, he took part in the procession. It is to be noted that, when the procession passed through the Calle de General Hughes, we noticed a friar sitting on the sidewalk of a house of a Spaniard, Don Felipe Diez; but, in spite of this, there was no cry uttered, nor was there even the slightest hostile manifestation of any kind, the procession passing on without any notice being taken of the friar. This proves that there did not prevail among the people a spirit of hostility nor a desire to make any manifestation; otherwise the presence of said friar would have offered a favorable opportunity for such demonstration. If, late at night, when the party gathered in the main square, there were one or two cries of Out with the bishop," I am quite sure that not the real pueblo, not the sensible people, was responsible for this, but simply a few persons who, taking advantage of the protection from discovery afforded by the darkness and by the crowd of people, and without duly estimating their acts, allowed themselves these liberties. For the rest, in the case of an incident of the nature described, it is difficult (not to use the term impossible) to prevent its occurrence, although on the present occasion due warning was given at the time to the directors of the civic demonstration.

Such are the events that took place at Iloilo and Jaro, and, as you will see, they were not in any sense seditious. It does not surprise us that Father Viera as an offended party should have presented the facts in the form which best suited his interests, but what does surprise us is that Father Viera, when misrepresenting the facts, should have added that it was impossible to secure protection from the local authorities of Iloilo and Jaro, a statement which involves a very serious libel against all the authorities here, beginning with the provincial board and the court of first instance, which libel we can not allow to pass without protest. Whence has Father Viera learned that he was not able to secure protection from the local authorities of Iloilo and Jaro? Perhaps he has had recourse to them. And if he has not had recourse to them for help, how does he dare to make such a charge? Does he mean to say, perhaps, that the authorities harbor and protect those persons who would assault a stranger like himself? Father Viera makes the statement that it is impossible to rely upon the local authorities of Iloilo and Jaro for protection, and still he moves about Jaro and Iloilo, which are under the control of said authorities, by day and by night, on foot and in vehicle, with perfect safety, without having been assaulted by anyone. If the acts which he denounces had been really seditious, and he had appealed to this provincial government or to the court of first instance, we are sure he would have received the attention due him and that proper investigation would have been made.

I protest, therefore, in the name of the credit (honor) of the local authorities of Iloilo and Jaro, so seriously libeled by Father Viera, and, to the end that such action should not go unpunished, I pray that permission be granted me to furnish the provincial fiscal with a copy of the charges filed by Father Viera, so that should he (the fiscal) so think proper, he may take criminal action in the premises.

Very respectfully,

MARTIN F. DELGADO,
Provincial Civil Governor.