Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/400

3 go Reviews of Books tions, but its fundamental errors remain. There was no " treaty ", though Aguinaldo may have believed so. It is very strange that Mr. Foreman has never seen General Primo de Rivera's Memoria, nor other Spanish accounts published since 1898. While in the Philippines in 1904, Mr. Foreman seems to have consulted Pedro Paterno, the " media- tor " at Biak-na-bato, and to have taken him very seriously (inserting a ridiculous biography of him on pages 411-413). We are now for the first time given to understand that Mr. Foreman was an intimate of Rizal; still, he gives us an account of Rizal's career that is minus most of the significant data. There is a blunder in almost every line of the account of the siege and capture of Manila ; no hint appears to have ' leached this author that it was virtually surrendered. Just one other illustration of his inaccuracy: he has (p. 471) Admiral Camara's fleet going to the Philippines in November, 1898, three months after the sus- pension of hostilities, and in consequence of the threatened rupture between the peace negotiators at Paris ! There ought to be a place for a good review of the American occu- pation of the Philippines; but Mr. Foreman's new chapters certainly do not fill this gap. Like the rest of the book, the new part has scarcely a page free from important errors (not to mention vital omissions). The author has blithefully gone about his task without sifting the mass of data already published, or even reading more than a few of the com- moner documents, chosen apparently at random. Instead, he has relied upon miscellaneous information gathered from certain Filipinos in Eu- lope and from Filipino and other residents of Manila, Iloilo, and Sebii during his brief visit in 1904. His informants were often badly chosen (as in the case cited above), much of what he rehearses is mere gossip, part is malicious misinformation, and everywhere one notes lacunae, often of a most startling sort. Just a few of the errors and omissions are noted, and they fittingly characterize the work : No real study is made of the organization and workings of the Malolos government, and such important matters as the contest over religious freedom gets a mere allusion (p. 469), or more commonly no mention at all; the account of Luna's assassination (pp. 500-501) has been furnished by persons ignorant of the facts or interested in distorting them ; such an important episode as the " involving campaign " of November, 1899, the flight of Aguinaldo, and the end of the " Filipino Republic " is passed over entirely (!); no mention is made of the provisional civil government (1899-1901) of Negros, which accepted American sovereignty: General J. F. Bell's campaign in Batangas in 1902 is not mentioned; the author has no conception of how peace was brought about in most provinces in igoi^ — he dates it and the sedition act in 1902, confuses the reports of the two Philippine Commissions, and nowhere describes comprehensively the fundamental legislation of 1901 upon which the present government rests; nowhere, for example, does he tell what are the qualifications for the ballot ; he does go into details about the " Bates Treaty " with the