Mr. Foster to Mr.
Snowden.
Department
of State,
Washington, November 3,
1892.
No. 25.]Sir: I take this opportunity at the beginning of
your mission to instruct you specially with respect to the pending
differences between this Government and the Government of Spain relative to
American missionaries at Ponape, in the Caroline Islands.
No sooner did the Spanish Government assume authority over these islands, in
1887, than the rights of the American missionaries, who for thirty-five
years had resided there in peace, began to be seriously infringed. Their
persons were molested, their lands seized, and their buildings and mission
premises finally destroyed. In November, 1890, having been burned out of
house and home, and inhibited from doing any Christian work, they were
temporarily removed as a measure of prudence to Kusiaec Island, 300 miles
distant, to await the settlement of their difficulties. This removal was
accomplished by Commander Taylor, of the U. S. S. Alliance, who had been sent to Ponape to make a full
investigation. A copy of his report accompanied the Department’s full
instruction of October 6, 1891. You will attentively study that instruction
and report, and the other correspondence on file in your legation with
respect to this matter, in order that you may thoroughly familiarize
yourself with all the details of this unfortunate affair.
On the 16th of January last, Mr. Grubb transmitted to the Department a copy
of a note received from the Duke of Tetuan, dated January 11, being the
reply of his Government to Mr. Newberry’s note of the 4th of November
preceding. In acknowledging the same March 24, it was stated that “setting
aside the arguments advanced to disclaim the responsibility of the Spanish
Government in this regard, and for the deportation of Mr. Doane, the purport
of the note seems to be that
[Page 505]
the
reëstablishment of the mission will be permitted, and that on receipt of
advices still awaited, the question of personal indemnification to Mr. Doane
will be adjusted on satisfactory terms.”
The language of the Duke of Tetuan’s note in this regard is not so specific
as might be desired, but it was understood that he assented to the return of
the missionaries and the full resumption of their work. Indeed no other
course could accord with the distinct assurances which the Spanish
Government has repeatedly given the Government of the United States of its
purpose to respect the rights and privileges of American citizens in the
Caroline Islands, and in particular of the American missionaries. In
resuming their benevolent enterprise this Government relies upon the
assurance of the minister of state to your legation October 15, 1885, that
“nothing was farther from the intention of the Spanish Government than to
seek to hamper or embarrass in the slightest degree the work of
Christianizing and teaching,” in which these missionaries were engaged, “it
being determined, on the contrary, to favor and permit such beneficent
results to the extent of its ability.” (Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 833.) If the local authorities of
Ponape have not already been informed of the renewed purpose of Her
Majesty’s Government to permit and foster the resumption of their praise
worthy labors, you will ask that proper instructions in that sense may be
sent them without delay. The secretary of the American board of
commissioners for foreign missions, under date of the 20th ultimo, has
informed me that their missionary vessel has called at Ponape with the
missionaries once or twice within the past two years, and that while the
governor has personally borne himself with all due courtesy, he has declared
himself unable to give the missionaries welcome back until he has authority
from Spain. As soon as you can obtain information that appropriate orders
have been sent to the governor you will immediately notify me.
I regret that the Duke of Tetuan should have thought it necessary to
reiterate the charges against the missionaries of abetting or aiding the
natives’ resistance to Spanish authority. They were formulated, as he says,
in the letter of the politico-military governor of the Eastern Carolines to
Commander Taylor, October 25, 1891, but the charges were then unsupported by
the production of evidence and they remain so now. They are sufficiently
negatived by the very circumstances of the case. Not only do the
instructions of the home society expressly forbid all interference by the
missionaries with the political affairs of the country where they dwell, but
in fact when the rising of the natives first occurred in June, 1890, Mr.
Rand had been absent from the island eighteen months and the venerable Mr.
Doane some five months. The only white persons connected with the mission
who were present were two lady teachers. Were it conceivable that they were
capable of exercising malicious political influence over the natives, any
intelligent white person must have known that the resistance of the natives
to Spanish authority was perfectly hopeless and that political disorder
would only retard and perhaps undo, as it in fact so largely has done, the
work to which for thirty-five years the American missionaries at Ponape had
devoted their lives. Every possible interest of theirs was on the side of
law and order and the efforts of Miss Palmer and Mrs. Cole, and, after his
return, of Mr. Rand also, to restore quiet, deserves praise and recognition,
not complaint. The Spanish priest, Father Augustine, and his assistant owe
their lives and their escape from the fury of the mob to these ladies and
some of their native friends.
But furthermore, the charges referred to are fully met by the positive
[Page 506]
evidence collected by Commander
Taylor, copies of which have already been furnished the Spanish Government.
In his language it makes it certain “that the American Protestant
missionaries have in no way, by speech or action, at any time incited the
natives or favored their rising, or any acts of rebellion against the lawful
authority of Spain.” I do not hesitate, therefore, to direct you to give to
Her Majesty’s Government the assurance it desires that the missionaries will
“lay aside all spirit of prejudice towards the Spanish authorities and
confine themselves simply to their religious and humanitarian purposes,”
although protesting at the same time that they have not failed to do so
heretofore.
Inasmuch as the Duke of Tetuan relies upon the letter of Governor Cadarzo, of
October 25, 1891, and indeed it is the only document of which this
Government has knowledge to which he does refer, it is proper that I should
speak of it briefly. An attentive consideration of the letter discloses that
the real burden of the Governor’s complaint is not that the missionaries in
some vague and remote way have abetted the resistance of the natives, of
which he claims to have heard rumors “from the lips of foreigners and some
of the natives,” but rather that the American missionaries were established
upon the islands at all. I will quote one paragraph of his letter in full:
But as satisfied as I was for so long a period with all the natives
of the island, it grieves me to say it, and I do so with concern,
that the influence of the Methodist missionaries, I am convinced, in
no way favored the interests of Spain, much needing, as you will
understand, the support of all in the first years of her dominion.
The Methodist missionaries, I repeat, have managed to make
proselytes, setting aside everything else to the end that the
missions may exist and it may not he said that the Government of
Spain has not shown them the way to follow, for in all the acts of
life it has reflected the disinterestedness of the mother country,
and the marked material profit they have received from it. As well
before as after our arrival, they had received a direct contribution
paid by all the families of the island and by all those whom they
had caused to embrace the Christian religion. This tax exists even
in these days, and consists in the payment of twenty cocoanuts for
each married couple, and five for each child and adult baptized. It
is true that such contributions they are taught to say is for the
all-powerful God, but, in fact, it would be more just that this real
and effective tribute should be paid to the Spanish nation, which is
making so many sacrifices to encourage and civilize these
unfortunates almost savage. For if they were not so they would not
comply with such a grudge of the unjust contribution which they pay,
with so much more reason, as there exist on the island other worthy
missionaries who teach a healthy morality and a form of the
Christian religion, which for these natives is exactly similar,
without molesting in any way the meagre rights of the natives.
This Government cannot take into consideration the particular sect of these
missionaries. It is now known that they belong to the Methodist
denomination, although it is understood that they were Protestants. Were
they Catholic, the relation of this Government to them would be precisely
the same. It sympathizes with their work because Christian. It accords them
protection because American. The quotation which I have made from Governor
Cadarso’s letter discloses the real animus of the local authorities to the
American missionaries, and how, forgetting the promises of their Government
to protect and foster, they were easily inclined to annoy and vex them.
The first complaint made in 1887, was of the harsh and unjustifiable
treatment of the venerable missionary, Mr. Doane. Worn out by his hardships
he undertook in 1890 to return to this country for the purpose of recruiting
his health, but died at Hawaii. So long ago as November 8, 1887, the
minister of state admitted that the local authorities had “unduly acted”
against him. The question of proper reparation was fully discussed in the
Department’s instruction of October 6,
[Page 507]
1891. With respect to it I am gratified to learn that
Her Majesty’s Government simply awaits some evidence which must come from
the Governor-General of the Philippines in order to “settle the same with
all haste possible, and in a just and equitable manner.”
There remains the general question of reparation to the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions, for the injuries done to their property
and interests by the local authorities at Ponape since the Spanish
occupation (copy of letter from the Board. March 26, 1892, inclosed). For
these injuries the Government of Her Majesty disclaims liability upon the
strength of an investigation which it has caused to be made, and from which
it has arrived at certain conclusions of fact, which are stated under three
heads. The evidence in support thereof or even its general character is not
disclosed, so that it is impossible for me to fully discuss these
conclusions or to produce evidence in rebuttal were that thought necessary.
I may say, however, that they are but little pertinent to the question at
issue. They are, in their order:
1. That the church and other American property destroyed at Oua had
no sign on it to denote its nationality, not even the inscriptions
which the politico-military governor of the Caroline islands had
given to the American missionaries in order that their building
should be recognized.
This is quite immaterial unless it is intended to assert that it was
destroyed through ignorance of its American character. But so far as I am
aware, neither in the correspondence between the two governments nor in the
negotiations between Commander Taylor and the governor, has there been any
suggestion that such was the case; nor can I believe that it is intended to
make such a point now, so contrary to all of the admitted facts.
2. That the destruction of these buildings was caused in legitimate
defense by the fact of the native insurgents using them as their
stronghold, keeping up from them a hot fire against the government
troops. The destruction of said bull dings had as an object the avoiding
that they might in future act as an obstacle to the military operations
which were being carried on.
The charge that the natives used these buildings in their resistance to the
Spanish troops is disputed by the missionaries. (See copy of letter of
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, April 15, 1892,
herewith.) But whether they were so used or not, Mr. Rand and the ladies,
with the approval of the governor, had left Oua some days prior to the
engagement there, making it impossible for them to control their houses, and
equally impossible to assign to them any fault if they were used hostilely.
If the native insurgents used the mission premises at Oua for resistance,
the responsibility belongs to them alone who, from the first, were acting
contrary to the advice and entreaties of the missionaries. Even if military
exigencies were thought to require its destruction, it must be remembered
that the property was devoted simply to Christian purposes, and had been
promised the especial protection of the Spanish authorities. Indeed during
these very troubles the mission had afforded an asylum to the Spanish
priests. Belying, therefore, upon the ancient friendship of Her Majesty’s
Government and its interest in every humanitarian work, I shall be much
disappointed if, on that account, it should be any the less anxious to make
good the loss.
3. That the protest presented by the American missionaries regarding the
establishment of a Spanish Catholic mission at Oua did not allege any
right of property as to the grounds on which the Spanish mission was
going to be established; it did not even mention that it would be
inconvenient or incommodious to them. But the protest was exclusively
based on the idea that from the proximity of both missions the
Protestant singing might annoy the Catholic mission.
[Page 508]
At the time of the occurrence in question the only American missionary on the
island of Ponapé was Miss Palmer. You will find her statement of the matter
accompanying the letter of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions, dated April 15, heretofore referred to. It appears therefrom that
although her protest with respect to the question of property rights may not
have been in the strict legal form, there was no reason for the Spanish
authorities failing to understand that the American missionaries claimed the
land which was taken. Indeed the governor seems to have taken occasion to
deny their right to it, showing that that point was not overlooked.
Furthermore, more than two years prior to the taking of the missionaries’
land at Oua, the governor had required them to deliver to him their title
deeds in order that they might be sent to the Governor-General, at Manila,
for approval. They were not returned as he promised at the time, nor have
they been yet, although your legation under the instructions of the
Department protested on January 18, 1889, against their retention. It is
impossible to conceive how the Spanish authorities could have had better
notice of the extent of the land claimed by the missionaries when they
actually had exclusive possession of the title papers. It never has been
suggested before and I can not believe that that view is intended to be
pressed now, that the local authorities seized the land in question in
ignorance of the fact that the American missionaries claimed it as their
own. But even if the land were taken in ignorance of its ownership, that
fact would not relieve the Spanish Government from the duty to restore it to
its rightful owner or to make just reparation therefor.
I have thought it proper to thus review the incidental questions raised by
the Duke of Tetuan’s note in order that the main issues may not be obscured.
They have been so fully discussed in previous instructions that there is no
necessity for me to add thereto. In all due respect, it is submitted,
therefore, that this Government has a right to expect (1) that explicit
instructions will be sent without delay to the local authorities at Ponape
to allow the missionaries to return and resume their work; (2) that explicit
instructions will be sent for the immediate return to them of their
title-papers, which for over four years the Spanish authorities have
wrongfully retained; (3) that their land shall be restored to them. This not
only applies to land at Oua, but at Roukiti, Santiago, and other places; (4)
that a proper reparation shall be made for the destruction of their premises
and injury to their property; (5) that some proper reparation shall be made
for the personal injuries to Mr. Doane.
I desire, if possible, that this matter should not be left to the formal
interchange of notes, and therefore, as soon as you can familiarize yourself
with the papers, you will endeavor to make it a matter of personal
conference with the minister of state. It is desirable that you should
arrive at some common understanding with him as regards the facts. That
would be hastened, I am sure, if he would courteously furnish you with a
copy of the report of the investigation to which he referred in his note of
January 11. Copies of the report of Commander Taylor, and of the evidence
collected by him, were furnished him at the time. For your assistance in
this matter I have arranged with the Secretary of the Navy that Commander
Taylor should proceed to Madrid as early as possible. You will make such use
of his services as you may be able. His high standing as an officer and a
gentleman, and his unprejudiced investigation entitle his conclusions to
great weight, and certainly his observations of fact to perfect
reliance.
[Page 509]
This whole case requires to be handled with much prudence and a reasonable
degree of patience, but relying upon the high sense of justice of Her
Majesty’s Government, I cannot doubt that the just expectations of the
United States will be generously met at an early day. It is five years since
this unhappy controversy began; abundant time has elapsed for the Spanish
Government to collect the necessary information to adjust the rights and
claims of the missionaries, and you must urge the Duke of Tetuan not to
further delay a settlement.
You will keep me fully informed of your action in the premises.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 25.]
The American Board of Foreign
Missions to President Harrison.
[undated.]
(Received March 26, 1892.)
To the President:
At the last meeting of the American Board, October, 1891, a special
committee was appointed to lay before the President of the United States
a statement of the treatment by the Spanish Government of one of our
missionary stations at Ponape, one of the Caroline Islands. For
thirty-five years, or from 1852 to 1887, the Micronesian missions have
been in existence employing in all forty-eight missionaries, the first
of whom were Rev. H. A. Sturges and Dr. Luther H. Gulick. Including the
expense of the four ships built for the purpose of communicating with
them by American children, the mission has cost $733,643. As a partial
result of this outlay on the Ponape Island, Rev. Mr. Doane wrote in 1887
that the people had given up polygamy, the making and use of
intoxicating drinks, and that four of the five little kingdoms on the
island had become Christian; while in that fifth kingdom were two
hundred and seventy-five church members.
In July, 1886, the Spaniards came and the missionaries assisted in
interpreting for them, they giving the strongest assurance that the work
of the mission should not be interfered with. On March 13, 1887, came a
Spanish man-of-war with a governor for the islands, several officers,
fifty soldiers, twenty-five convicts, and six Capuchin priests. The
governor renewed the assurance of perfect religious freedom for all. But
before June following all but two of the nine mission schools had been
closed by him; while he insisted that the language taught in the schools
should be Spanish, and that no distinctively Protestant instruction
should be given. Meanwhile the natives were encouraged to return to the
use of the kava plant as an intoxicating drink, and houses of ill fame
were established for the accommodation of the Spanish soldiery, to save
themselves from which many of the young girls were driven to take refuge
in the boarding school attached to the mission.
Soon after their landing in 1887, the Spaniards began to build on land
deeded to the missionaries in 1870, seventeen years before the arrival
of the Spaniards. Against this unlawful seizure, Mr. Doane sent in a
formal protest, and a day or two later he was arrested by an officer
with a squad of soldiers, and imprisoned on board the man-of-war. His
missionary associate, Mr. Rand, was not permitted to see him. This was
without due process of law, and, as afterward explained, because he had
spoken of the governor’s method as arbitrary, Mr. Doane claiming that he
should be permitted to prove his right to the land by the testimony of
credible witnesses, which the governor refused. After having been kept a
prisoner till June 11, Mr. Doane was sent to Manila, which was 2,000
miles away. The governor-general there not only summoned no court, but
dismissed the charges against Mr. Doane and sent him back with a
personal letter, dated August 4, 1887, thanking him and his associates
for the benefit of their labors to the Spanish Government in preparing
the natives for civilization.
But during Mr. Doane’s absence other complications arose. One of the
mission teachers was warned to work on the roads, and no substitute was
accepted, though it resulted in the breaking up of the school. At Kenan
the people were told that if they attempted to meet on the Lord’s day
for worship their assembly would be forcibly dispersed. Threats were
made also that if the mission premises were not sold to the Spaniards
they would be taken by force. The chief of one of the tribes, who, with
his men, had been working on the road without compensation, grew tired
of it and abandoned the work. Twenty soldiers were sent to arrest them.
These soldiers fired into the feast house where they were eating,
killing two and wounding three.
[Page 510]
The moment their guns were discharged, the outraged natives fell upon
the soldiers with clubs and left not one of them alive. The missionaries
restrained the church members from participating, but the masses arose,
attacked the fort, and, at the expense of the lives of ten of their
number, put to death the governor, his secretary, and thirty-seven of
the soldiers. In their indignation they intended to attack the
man-of-war, but Mr. Rand apprised the captain of his danger, and sent a
letter to the people in the interest of peace. This had all transpired
during Mr. Doane’s absence. It was a rebellion against tyranny,
doubtless, just as those which have made famous the names of Tell and
Wallace and our own Warren. And to show the attitude of the
missionaries, Mr. Doane and Mr. Rand, on September 10, went to Kenan and
persuaded the natives to return to the Spaniards a boat, some cannon,
and other property taken in the disturbances. Miss Fletcher writes: “We
have given all our influence to keep the peace on the islands, and more
than once things would have been ten times worse for the Spaniards had
not the missionaries stood between them and the natives.”
On October 29, Don Luis Cadarso, a new governor, with seven hundred
soldiers arrived, offering a general amnesty, and a council between the
governor and the chiefs was held in the house of Mr. Doane as neutral
ground, the missionaries all urging the natives to a compliance with the
conditions exacted by the governor. On November 19 came the United
States sloop of war Essex, showing that our
missionaries were not wholly forgotten. In March, 1888, Mr. Doane
rebuilt his house at Kenan. Mr. Rand, meantime was obliged to leave his
work for a temporary rest. In 1890 Mr. Doane, still more exhausted, died
at the Hawaiian Islands, which he was barely able to reach, leaving Miss
Palmer and Mrs. Cole alone. Two days after his death, by order of the
new governor, a lieutenant with thirty men came and commenced to erect a
fort and barracks, church, and a priest’s house near the mission
station. These were, at the suggestion of the priests, soon after
actually built on the mission premises on land owned by the American
board. Miss Palmer protested; but the fort and barracks were placed
within 40 rods of the mission church and the church and the priest’s
house only 60 feet from it and directly in front of it.
In June, twenty more soldiers were added to the garrison. Miss Palmer
urged the natives to keep the peace and help the governor in his
buildings; but what could these women do to appease the outraged
feelings of the natives? They made another attack upon the Spaniards,
killing the lieutenant and twenty of his men, though a native helper
saved the lives of the priests at whose bidding the governor had been
committing these outrages on mission property. August 20 Mr. Rand
returned, but the governor would not allow him to visit Oua except by
boat. From the day of his return to September 30 Mr. Rand devoted
himself to the work of making peace. A now man-of-war brought six
hundred additional soldiers, making in all one thousand on the island.
The missionaries were to be put on board a Spanish man-of-war, but they
preferred the missionary ship The Morning Star.
On September 13 the men-of-war began to shell Oua, then went to
Metalamin Harbor, and for live days shelled the settlement, destroying
their breadfruit and other valuable trees, while the church, and the
whole village of Kenan were burned. September 19 two men-of-war and two
transports shelled Oua incessantly and rendered the mission building
worthless, though these had never been occupied by the natives. The next
day three hundred-soldiers landed and burned what remained of the
mission house. September 27 Mrs. Rand and Miss Palmer returned to the
island on the Morning Star, which had been absent
at Kusaie, but in forty-eight hours from the landing all meetings and
schools were forbidden by the governor. On October 15 the United States
steamer Alliance arrived in the harbor, and as
Mr. Rand was forbidden to engage in any missionary work he accepted
Capt. Taylor’s offer and went on board his vessel to Kusaie, thus
terminating missionary work there.
For being thus broken up in their Christian work, for being deprived of
their property, for the wanton shelling and destruction of their mission
buildings, these American citizens, representing, and here represented,
by the American board and their larger constituency, seek redress
through the United States Government. For thirty-five years they had
been in possession before the Spaniards came. They had expended not less
than $730,000. They had shown their friendliness to the Spaniards in
trying to restrain the natives, and yet the missionaries themselves were
driven into exile, their houses and books destroyed, their schools and
churches suppressed. As early as July, 1887, the American board began to
seek redress through their own Government. Between the years 1887 and
1889 not less than eighteen letters were addressed by the officials of
the board to Secretary Bayard, of the last administration. Between 1889
and 1891 the same number of letters has been addressed to Secretary
Blaine, of the present administration, in all of which the injustice and
hardships of the case have been urged upon the attention of the State
Department. The attention of the Government is claimed, not only to the
actual outrages and injury suffered in the case, but to the moral effect
upon the cause of missions in foreign lands of submitting peaceably and
without remonstrance
[Page 511]
to such
wrong, as also to the insult to the American name and wrong to American
citizenship. We ask to be reinstated in our missionay work, to be
indemnified for our losses, and to be protected as American citizens in
the future.
In behalf of the American board.
- R. L. Store, President.
- Chester Holcombe.
- J. E. Rankin.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 25.]
Mr. Smith to Mr.
Blaine.
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions,
1 Somerset Street,
Boston, Mass., April 15, 1892.
(Received April 18.)
Dear Sir: Recalling the reply from the ministry
of state at Madrid to the United States minister there respecting
matters at Ponape, there was one point to which I did not refer in my
recent letter commenting upon that document. I purposely omitted it, as
I hoped soon to have additional information in my possession bearing
upon the matter. The point referred to runs in these terms: “The protest
presented by the American missionaries regarding the establishment of a
Spanish Catholic mission at Oua did not allege any right of property as
to the grounds on which the Spanish mission was going to be established;
it did not even mention that it would be inconvenient or incommodious to
them; but the protest was exclusively based on the idea that from the
proximity of the missions the Protestant singing might annoy the
Catholic mission.” The only American missionary on the island of Ponape
at the time of the events referred to was Miss Annette A. Palmer, and
she is now in this country. I wrote immediately to her, quoting this
part of the communication, and asking her to let me know what was the
tenor of her communications to the governor at the time when it was
proposed to establish a Spanish station near our station at Oua. I
inclose a copy in full of her reply, which contains important testimony
touching this matter.
It is not strange that this young woman, being alone, with a large school
of girls upon her hands, should in such troublous times have been less
explicit upon the question of property rights than the gentlemen who
were members of that station would have been had they been present at
the same time. But it is plain from this letter that Miss Palmer’s mind
did not overlook the fact of the property right of the American board to
the land which the Spanish were proposing to use. The request which she
sent to the governor by Mr. Bowker (an American trader, resident at
Ponape, friendly to our missionaries) distinctly called the attention of
the governor to this point, and the answer of the governor was returned,
and in explicit terms ignored the right of the American missionaries to
the land which had been formally conveyed to them by the native chiefs
years before. I think you will see from Miss Palmer’s letter that the
claim made in this part of the reply from the ministry of state is both
weak in itself and is shown to be contrary to the facts by Miss Palmer’s
statement.
It is of interest to note Miss Palmer’s testimony with reference to the
use of the mission houses at Oua as a stronghold by the native
insurgents. It confirms in an incidental and very effective way what has
been already communicated to you in a previous note on this subject.
Permit me in connection with what I have already said to call your
attention again to a fact mentioned more than once in previous
correspondence with reference to the treatment of the property rights of
our missionaries on Ponape and of the title deeds to that property by
the Spanish governor. At the first coming of the Spaniards, property was
taken at Kenan, the place of Mr. Doane’s residence, without
compensation, as land was taken at Oua three years later, also without
compensation. Further, the deeds showing the title of our missionaries
to the lands which they occupied on the island were, at the request of
the Spanish governor, placed in his hands for approval and examination
soon after the establishment of Spanish authority in the islands. These
deeds have never been returned and no assurance has been given that they
have been approved or that it is the purpose of the Spanish Government
to recognize the property rights of American citizens on this island.
These are matters which need to be brought distinctly to the attention
of the Government at Madrid. They constitute injurious treatment of
American citizens at the hands of a friendly power, which, if not
remedied, can not consist with justice or with continued friendly
relations.
I am, etc.,
Judson Smith,
Foreign Secretary American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions.
[Inclosure.]
Miss Palmer to Mr.
Smith.
173 First Avenue, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, April
11, 1892.
Dear Friend: Your letter of April 4 came to
hand in due time, and while I am very glad to know that there is hope
that we can return to Ponape, I feel very much troubled over some things
which you mention. I thank you very much for letting me see the paper
you sent. They are mistaken I think in regard to the brother of the Kiti
king ever being in any real sense an adherent of Protestantism. The Kiti
king and nearly all of the Kiti chiefs except Noj (Solomon) and Nanpei
(Henry) were never anything but heathen, although they were very
friendly. I am very sorry about Edward, the teacher at Not. His
stepdaughter, Tillie, was one of our best scholars, and he and his wife
were frequent visitors at our home. She may be the one mentioned as
making such rapid progress or it may be a younger sister.
In regard to the statement that “the protest presented by the American
missionaries regarding the establishment of a Spanish Catholic mission
at Oua did not allege any right of property as to the grounds on which
the Spanish mission was then to be established, etc.” In the first place
we were given plainly to understand that it was all for the Government;
that the priest must go where the soldiers did. I think that perhaps
only a verbal protest was sent. I wrote several letters, but was not
satisfied with any of them, and when Mrs. Cole proposed going I am not
sure that she carried any written word. This protest was against the
church being placed so near ours that the services would be mutually
disturbing. I did not know how much it would be wise to say aud was
afraid of saying the wrong thing. What had been done in the case of
Kenan and Wana, with Mr. Doane and Mr. Rand both on the island, was not
much encouragement to me to think that I could do anything alone.
Before this, however, Mr. Bowker went to the governor for me. I think
that he carried a note, but am not sure. I know that I was afraid that
there might be difficulty about it afterward if their attention was not
called at the time of building to the fact that the land belonged to the
American board. Mr. Bowker was treated very rudely and we were informed
(I am not sure that it was just at this time, but think it was; I am
sure of the message) that no land would be considered as belonging to
the mission except that in actual use—that covered by our houses and
that under cultivation. Indeed, we feared for a time that they would
actually build between our house and Mr. Rand’s. They came back to that
place several times and stood there and talked so long and measured the
ground off with their sticks and seemed to be planning whether or no
they could build there until we were glad to have them as far away as
down the hill.
They promised once to build close by the shore, but the governor soon
sent a letter saying that as Lieut. Paros and Father Augustine
represented the place by our church to be the only healthy site, they
would go on with the building. Lieut. Paros told some of the natives
afterward that if we had come to him instead of going to the governor he
would have had the church built elsewhere. I think that although no
formal protest was made at this time, still they could not plead
ignorance of the fact that it was considered the property of the
American board, as the deeds for the land at Oua as well as all the
other mission lands on the Ponape had been presented to the governor for
his approval (which they never got) long before this.
I have always made it a rule to keep copies of all important letters that
I write, but do not know whether I did so in this case or not. Perhaps
there is a little excuse for me in the fact that anxieties and troubles
came so fast and I was so much alone, Mrs. Cole being very little help
in the closer watching and extra care of the school made necessary by
the proximity of so many soldiers.
I presume that I do not quite understand the matter, but I can not see
why they make this of any importance in connection with the damages
asked for, which I supposed were meant to cover the loss to the mission
by the burning of our houses and other property. I am not willing to
admit that religious feeling played nearly as important a part in
causing this trouble as Mr. Rand thinks. The character of those who
began the trouble, although others were drawn in through clan feeling,
the nature of the complaints against the Spaniards, and many other
things lead me to believe that the trouble would have come just as
surely had they gone to Tumun, Paul’s place, instead of coming to Oua.
Henry was of the same opinion at the time and so was Mr. Bowker. I do
not say that religious feeling had nothing to do with it, but that the
main cause was rather race feeling.
In regard to the use of the mission property by the natives as a
stronghold, I am afraid that, while I know positively that the houses
were never so used, there can be no testimony offered in regard to this
that Spain would accept. We were at Kiti at the time and communication
with the Metalinim tribe was strictly forbidden by the governor. What I
know in regard to the destruction of the property came from
[Page 513]
two sources, Capt. Narrhun and
natives. This Capt. Narrhun is the one who is mentioned as having his
baby baptized by the priest. He went with the Spanish force when Oua was
attacked, and he told Mrs. Cole that he went up on the hill alone in
advance of the rest of the force and went through our house leisurely,
even sitting down to the organ and trying the notes, and he asserted
positively that it had not been used by the natives as a stronghold. He
is not the kind of a man, however, who could be depended upon to say
this if it was in any way against his interest to do so. In spite of the
governor’s prohibition there was some communication between the tribes,
as those who had relatives in danger would hear from them at any risk to
themselves, and by such persons also we were credibly informed that the
mission premises were never used as a stronghold.
I am sorry that I have been so long in writing this letter, but I find it
very hard still to go over those scenes in memory, almost harder than to
live through them, I think sometimes. I hope that I have answered your
questions so far as to be intelligible. I have been sorry so many times
that I did not keep a careful record from day to day of what happened.
It would have been very useful several times. I was very busy, however,
and did not realize as I do now the importance of keeping such a
record.
Yours, faithfully,
