of 2 clerks, one at a salary of $900 and the other at a salary of $600 per annum, notwithstanding that our appropriations provide for one clerk at $1,400 per annum, one at $1,000, one at $600, and a messenger at $120. The $1,400 and $120 positions are still vacant. The $1,000 position is to be filled by Mr. José Torres, who is receiving $900 until such time as his duties will permit him to prepare himself to qualify in an examination for promotion under civil-service rules. Mr. Torres is an intelligent and zealous employee and has given entire satisfaction in the performance of his duties during my connection with the bureau. M. DE IRIARTE,

Very respectfully,

EXHIBIT D 1.

Chief of Bureau.

LANDS OF ARROCEROS AND THE AGUADAS.

Hon. WILLIAM H. TAFT,

Manila, P. I.

(Through Hon. J. F. SMITH, Secretary of Public Instruction.)

The question between the military and the city of Manila in regard to the Arroceros grounds is not new. It dates from the year 1848-that is, there have been fifty-five years of litigation, as appears from the records of these archives-and upon the termination of Spanish sovereignty in these islands not one of the many questions raised in regard to this matter has been settled.

The War Department, which represents the military, and the municipality for itself, each claims the right of ownership of said ground; but neither of the two presents any title incontrovertibly proving its claim, which is simply based on sophistic argument, for which reason, perhaps, it has been impossible to give a clear and definite solution to the matter.

After a careful examination of the records, laws, and orders on file in these archives, it appears that the governor captain-general, by decree of May 4, 1838, provided that the sum of 4 reales (50 cents) should be collected from each of the Chinese dyers who laid out their goods to the sun in front of the barracks, now known as Cuartel Fortin, to pay the expenses of the offices of the "mayoria" of the city. (The mayoria was the military department in charge of the fortified city of Manila, and the office of the "mayoria" might be compared to what, under the American rule, is known as "headquarters post of Manila".) This charge was collected until in the year 1848; that is, ten years afterwards the city government of Manila provided that after the 1st of February of said year it should be collected and turned into the general fund of the city. This was the origin of the long litigation which has since then taken place between the municipality and the military, not only in regard to these grounds, but also those of Arroceros and the Aguadas.

The question being taken up, the military contended in support of its claim that this land was within the 1,500-yard limit designated as a polemic zone for the defense of the plaza,a and therefore belonged to the military. It was alleged that on this land were the towns of San Anton, San Miguel, Santiago, and others, which were demolished because they constituted an obstacle to the defense of the plaza, the treasury (the State) giving other lands to the people who had occupied them; and that afterwards, with the object of improving the appearance of the place, it was provided by a decree of the captain general, dated September 11, 1794, that this land should be divided up among various persons to be made into recreation grounds and parks, it being provided in Clause XI of the decree "that this action did not give any title of ownership to the said grounds because they belonged to the King, and being so near the plaza the people will have to leave them and take down their houses in case his majesty disapproves of it." It therefore appears indisputable that they belonged to the King and not to the city.

a The word "plaza" wherever used in this report means a fortified town or place. As the city of Manila proper (the Walled City) was fortified it was known as the "Plaza de Manila."

The municipality based its claim on a royal order of November 20, 1780, which declared that the land, on which the town of San Anton and the barrio of Santa Catalina were situated belonged to the city; a royal order of December 22, 1781, ordering the expulsion of the inhabitants from the Parian because it belonged to the city; a decree of the superior government dated September 17, 1794 (this must be the decree of September 11, before cited), ordering that the Arroceros land be divided up to be made into gardens, and the decree of the 25th of the same month in which the municipality was asked if, in the exercise of its right of ownership, it wished to plant gardens in the interest of its residents, it being impossible to reestablish the Parian.

But the city was requested to show copies of said orders, and it does not appear that these were presented, as they are not included in the record of the case, and the question was not decided.

When the school of botany and agriculture was created by a decree of the general government of September 13, 1858, on the ground on which the botanical garden is now situated, in Article II of this decree it was declared that the ground was owned by the city, but by the royal decree of May 29, 1861, approving the former decree, the part referring to ownership is left out.

In July, 1864, the city requested of the governor-general authority to sell the grounds in which the garden is situated, as they were not fit for private buildings, in view of the government having granted permission to build on the Arroceros ground. When this question was raised, there also came up the question of ownership of the garden grounds, and the council of administration, in its report, was of opinion that the authority requested by the city should be refused, in view of the fact that the city did not have documents proving its title to said property. It does not appear that a definite decision has been given to this question, and for this reason the garden continued in the same place as at present.

This

Some months afterwards the same question came up with regard to the Arroceros grounds, one Manuel Martinez having requested of the city permission to put up on these grounds an arena for bullfights, to which the commandant of the military engineers was opposed, because the grounds were within the military zone. also brought up the question of doing away with the garden and selling the ground, and the council of administration, in its report, stated: "With regard to the ownership of the land, it must not be forgotten that these grounds were greatly enlarged when Fernando de Norzagaray was governor-general by converting some mangrove swamps into useful land with the work of soldiers and convicts, but it must not be understood by this that the council prejudges the question of ownership." It afterwards added "that to equitably decide the question of the ownership of this property it would be proper to name a mixed commission; that any decision made on this question should not embarrass the execution of any plan that might be adopted, all without prejudice to the rights of the respective parties, because, if before deciding the ownership of the property it should be necessary to dispose of the same the purchaser could pay the cost into the treasury (i. e., the State) and take possession, as the question of ownership would have to be discussed only between the city and the State, and neither would be prejudiced by the settlement of his account; and, lastly, that it would not be proper to hold up a very useful decision, such as converting the field of Aguadas into a park, with small houses, symmetrically built, simply because the real ownership of the property was not decided." This question, like the rest, was also never definitely decided.

In the year 1868, due undoubtedly to the frequent contentions between the municipality and the military, a commission on jurisdictional limits was formed, and with it was consolidated the commission charged by the royal order of September 2, 1836, with the formation of new plan of buildings for the outlying districts of the city. This commission, as consolidated, was composed of the commandant of engineers of the plaza, one alderman of the city, the captain of the port of Manila, the assistant chief inspector of public works, the military judge-advocate (auditor de guerra), assistant attorney-general of the supreme court, the inspector-general of public works, the naval judge-advocate (auditor de marinas), and the city attorney. In this way each branch of the administration had its representative, with the object in view that the work of the commission should be based on complete harmony of the interests intrusted to each branch.

The question of ownership of the land situated not only to the left of the Pasig River, but also to the right of the same, on which were populous districts of Binondo, Santa Cruz, and Quiapo, was then brought up..

The military founded its claim on the right of conquest, without which the first governor-general of the Philippines, Lopez de Legaspi, could not have taken possession of Manila, by virtue of which all the lands of the Philippines were Crown lands.

It refuted the argument of the municipality with regard to appointment of an exchange broker for the property of the city and the power of aldermen to divide up land, and asked: Which are these lands? With regard to the Parian de Sangleyes (Chinese market) the military also asked: What was this Parian, and what has become of it when in 1709 the Chinese were exiled, a step which was confirmed in 1747 by a royal cedula of later date than that cited by the municipality, and which consequently was revoked? It cited the royal order of October 18, 1777, which ordered the demolition of all the districts of Manila, including the Parian, after proper indemnities had been paid, as is proven by the records in the archives of the office of the captain-general, which disproves the assurance of the municipality that up to 1784 it had not been disturbed in the peaceful possession of these grounds; and it concluded by stating, with regard to the part to the right of the Pasig River, that the city represented Spanish interests, but that it wished to protect those of the natives, mestizos, Chinese, and foreigners.

The muncipality denied the right of conquest alleged by the military, and basing its argument on instructions given by the King to Legaspi before the latter came to these islands, showed the peaceful intentions of the monarch in regard to everything connected with the occupation of this country, he charging that no private property or effects should be taken from the natives, nor should they be injured, bothered, nor mistreated in any way; and that in the order given to Gomez Perez Dasmariñas in 1589 to build a defense around the city the mention of "enemies" only referred to adjacent countries, aside from the fact that said order was issued eighteen years after the foundation of Manila. It showed that Legaspi established the city of Manila on June 24, 1571, marking out places for the public square and for the church and convent of San Agustin, peopling the city with Spaniards, with aldermen and mayors (alcaldes), and empowering these latter to divide up lands among the people, reserving space for the public streets; that when the position of exchange broker for the property of the city was created in 1574 the ownership of the grounds possessed by the residents and inhabitants was recognized. Basing its claim on the above the city affirmed that the ownership of the municipality was prior to any other, an ownership recognized by the King when he ordered that property rights of the natives should be respected.

The municipality cited in its support a royal cedula of July 8, 1804, which reads literally as follows: "It has been reported to me by that city that I, having given the Parian de Sangleyes to be the property of the city, and this being ground belonging to the city and occupied and used by it, my governors of these islands have interfered and interfere to the prejudice of the city by granting portions of said Parian to some persons, which results prejudicial to the city, etc.; I order you to send me very particular information as to the matter, together, with your opinion, and that, until the matter has been decided, you carry out the royal cedulas which have been issued in regard to same." It then went on to copy another royal cedula dated September 6, 1784, which ordered that only the buildings be demolished which were obstacles to the work of the contre fosse (outer moat), leaving standing the others within range of the cannon, including churches of Parian and Dilao and the hospital of San Lazaro. It stated that this document proved that neither in 1662 nor before 1784 had the city been disturbed in the peaceful possession of its property, and that the order of the latter date did not give the ownership to the plaza, but merely prohibited construction within cannon range, not on the right but only on the left of the Pasig River. It called attention to this point and stated that with regard to the right side of the Pasig River the arguments it could advance in defense of the ownership of all the municipal territory were even more powerful, because this was not only represented by the land itself, but by the business of the whole Archipelago, which existed and was developed on that land, aside from the fact that according to expert opinion the right side of the Pasig River was not of the greatest importance for the defense of the plaza.

The fundamental arguments of both sides being examined, the commission issued an extensive report dated July 4, 1868, in which it set forth that because of the military laws being forgotten not only was the military zone invaded, but that some parties committed the abuse of building on the right and left banks of the Pasig and along its creeks; that the outer districts constituted an obstacle to the defense of the plaza, on account of which the military and civil interests were in open conflict, and that for this reason it would be better for the plaza to give this tactic zone to the city, and at the cost of the latter change and improve the fortifications; the cost of such improvement was estimated at 4,000,000 pesos, which was to be raised by taxation, thus making the city the true and lawful owner of the property it held by toleration and trespass and contrary to law; starting out on this basis it proposed a new map of the districts, giving new limits to the city under conditions expressed further on in the report.

The commission stated that by right of conquest all lands constituting the Philippine Archipelago were Crown lands, a right which was demonstrated by the war with the ancient owners who were vanquished by the Spaniards, and that the latter when they came into possession of Manila, founded the city of the same name on the ground surrendered by the vanquished, establishing a city government composed of Spaniards, the conquerors themselves; and in this manner civil jurisdiction was added to the military and naval jurisdiction, but the former did not have jurisdiction outside of the city proper, or, in other words, it was limited to the fortified town or plaza.

With regard to the military zone, or jurisdiction of the plaza, the commission stated that the time when the first limits of the city were mapped out, and that when these limits were changed by means of the fortifications, coincided with the revolution of ideas in the science of fortifications, a time when Manila was without a law specifying the zone of ground outside of the fortified town to be reserved as the exclusive property of the plaza as a field of action in its defense without, by such reservation, losing its character of Crown property; that although on this land towns, convents, and churches were built, such buildings only existed by toleration of the Government, and in 1662 the Government ordered them destroyed without any indemnity being paid, the military code, or royal ordinances, coming later, in 1878, to absolutely and definitely guarantee the exclusive military character of this land.

In the year 1762, Manila being taken by England in a war with Spain, the English governor ordered the demolition of these towns and buildings which had helped them in the conquest of the city, but when the city was returned to Spain the latter hesitated in carrying out the English law, and carried the matter up to the superior government, which provided that the demolition should be carried out, the royal treasury paying indemnity to the owners, and in this way the military zone between the Pasig River and Santa Lucia square was cleared, the towns being transferred to outside the polemic zone, where they are at present.

The commission went on to state that after the people had been put outside of the military zone they tried to invade the same zone near the Pasig River, or, in other words, on the right bank, under toleration of the governor, in spite of the royal orders issued in 1784 and 1786. A fire occurred in 1811 which consumed the entire town in that part, and this occurrence, instead of being an occasion for military laws to reassert themselves, called forth an order from the governor of Manila providing, among other things, that the reconstruction of the buildings destroyed should be done in groups, and these people, and even delegates of the government, went on in this manner invading the military zone on both sides of the river.

Matters were in this state when the royal order of September 2, 1836, was received, in which it was provided in view of the great importance and necessity of the plaza preserving its defensive value and for the purpose of protecting and guaranteeing the interests represented by the buildings to the right of the Pasig River, because of the rapid way in which the town was developing; said buildings being considered as forming a part of the walled city, that a rough map including said buildings be submitted for the approval of the supreme government, and that in the military zone situated to the left of the river the order prohibiting rebuilding should be rigidly observed.

On this account said order was given different interpretations which caused the plaza to lose its defensive zone to the right of the river, and extended the municipal jurisdiction outside the walls, the ground on which the towns of San Cayetano and Concepcion were situated being filled in, those in front of the cigarette factory fenced in for the cultivation of tobacco, others set aside for a botanical garden and a line drawn, called the "toleration line," within which the theater known as "Principe Alfonso" (this was burned down and has not been rebuilt, but in the place where it stood is the present government ice factory) and the water houses of the regiments were built (the place previously occupied by these latter was afterwards occupied by the artillery breeding stables from Concepcion street to the Real or Nozaleda gate). And this extended municipal jurisdiction, concurrent with others badly defined, served to increase the number of jurisdictions which were lamentably confused.

The commission stated that the municipal jurisdiction constituted the protection and guarantee of all interests affecting and concerning the common good of the residents, and that since the royal cedula of June 12, 1636, declared the aldermen of Manila to be decendants of the conquerors, it seemed but reasonable that the municipality should have done everything possible to preserve intact its jurisdiction over the plaza, which assumed the defense of the conquest of its illustrious progenitors. Speaking of the different civil jurisdictions the commission deplored the abuses committed by these, which event went so far as to make plans on a large scale, giv

ing details of the fortifications, plans which were sold everywhere to the people of Manila, without distinction of race or nationality.

With regard to the private land owners, the commission declared these to be the principal sufferers from the sad consequences of the opposition and constant disputes in which all rights, duties, interests, and jurisdictions clashed and became confused. The commission concluded finally by proposing a draft of a new law for Manila, the principal points of which were:

First. To add new works of defense to the fortifications.

66

Second. To establish wharves, wide waterways and roads, and military camps, etc. Third. That all land within the military zone of the plaza covered by the waterways and roadways mentioned in No. 2 to pay an annual tax of 20 cents of an escudo" (10 cents of a dollar) per surface meter, the proceeds of such tax to go to pay the expenses of the works it might be necessary to add to the present fortifications and the aquisition of ground and the work that should be required by the civil government in the construction of the said waterways and roads.

Fourth. That all ground included between the line which bounds the present military zone of the plaza and the outer canal, in which the new map of the town terminates, with the exception of that occupied by waterways and roads, should pay an annual tax of 6 cents of an "escudo" (3 cents of a dollar) per surface meter, the proceeds of this tax to be applied to said works.

Fifth. That owners of grounds to be encumbered should be heard previously. Sixth. That condemnation and expropriation of land should be carried out with the formalities provided by existing law.

Seventh. That amounts collected from the above-mentioned taxes should be divided between the military branch and the municipality, etc.

This ended the report of the commission, but the city attorney, its president, in view of this extraordinary plan, which he believed impracticable, and taking into account the disturbance to which such injustice would give rise, dissented from the opinion of his companions and made a report of his own.

He stated that the multitude of jurisdictions had been the cause of the disorder, which, thanks to the moderate character of the people, merely manifested itself in a peaceful manner, thus proving their good sense, and that the Government having tolerated and consented to their action it would not only be an injustice after so many years to interfere with them, but it was in the interests of the Government itself to preserve and protect without alteration the status quo of affairs.

He discussed the gravity of the question with regard to the right side of the Pasig River, because, aside from the question of the great property right created and fostered for more than one hundred years, there was the royal order (above referred to) of September 2, 1836, which accepted the situation and provided that this property be protected with the same guarantees as that inside the walls.

The city attorney added that it seemed impossible that the idea of imposing a tax on property, free for so many years, could be entertained for even a moment without taking into account the loss and bother that would be caused to landholders who owned the land freely and in good faith.

He believed that such a plan would only be a hotbed of law suits, would disturb legal rights, and would cause anxiety in many families, and that the tacit and expressed right of legal prescription, not only after thirty years but after three hundred years of possession, would be forgotten.

He also showed that for military works the Government should raise the necessary funds, and never, as was proposed, as an indemnity, because in this case the first to be punished should be the one who tolerated and gave the example by constructing factories of the treasury, the old market (alcaiceria) of San Fernando, the general collections buildings, and the Carenero and Meisic barracks, and never the one who by inheritance or legal transmission from generation to generation was owner of a piece of property, who would thus have to pay twice for his property, or buy what legitimately belonged to him.

The city attorney, in conclusion, stated that the municipal jurisdiction, as it was the oldest, was the one that should draw up the new map respecting existing conditions and indemnifying for any loss or injury that it might cause.

The opinion of the council of administration was heard, this being to the effect that the plan should be disapproved because it was not in harmony with legislation established by the royal order of September 2, 1836, which established as a principle the respect of vested property rights, and protection and guaranty of the same for the future, and withdrew the grounds to the right of the Pasig River from the military zone.

With these reports the record in the case was closed, and the affair remained in the same situation.