old system whom I shall quote is Mr. Sawyer. "If the natives fared
badly at the hands of recent authors, the Spanish Administration fared
worse, for it has been painted in the darkest tints, and unsparingly
condemned. It was indeed corrupt and defective, and what government
is not? More than anything else it was behind the age, yet it was
not without its good points.

"Until an inept bureaucracy was substituted for the old paternal rule,
and the revenue quadrupled by increased taxation, the Filipinos were
as happy a community as could be found in any colony. The population
greatly multiplied; they lived in competence, if not in affluence;
cultivation was extended, and the exports steadily increased.--Let us
be just; what British, French, or Dutch colony, populated by natives
can compare with the Philippines as they were until 1895?" [124]

These striking judgments, derived from such a variety of sources, are a
sufficient proof that our popular ideas of the Spanish colonial system
are quite as much in need of revision as popular ideas usually are.

Yet one must not forget that the Spanish mission system, however useful
and benevolent as an agency in bringing a barbarous people within the
pale of Christian civilization, could not be regarded as permanent
unless this life is looked upon simply as a preparation for heaven. As
an educative system it had its bounds and limits; it could train to a
certain point and no farther. To prolong it beyond that stage would be
to prolong carefully nurtured childhood to the grave, never allowing
it to be displaced by self-reliant manhood. The legal status of the
Indians before the law was that of minors, and no provision was made
for their arriving at their majority. The clergy looked upon these
wards of the State as the school-children of the church, and compelled