hat has been above
stated, the apparent opposition obstacle to which at first sight
strikes the eye, in Law 40, Title 12, Book 6, speaking on this subject,
and expressly referring to the Philippine Islands, should be alleged,
no more will be necessary than to study its genuine sense, or read it
with attention, in order to be convinced of its perfect concordance
with the essential parts of the other laws of the Indies, already
quoted in explanation and support of the system of distributing
the laborers. The above-mentioned law does indeed contain a strict
recommendation to employ the Chinese and Japanese, not domiciliated,
in preference to the natives, in the establishments for cutting timber
and other royal works, and further enjoins that use is only to be made
in emergencies, and when the preservation of the state should require
it. It has, however, happened that, since the remote period at which
the above was promulgated, not only all contracts and commerce have
ceased, but also every communication with Japan has been interrupted,
and for a number of years not a single individual of that ferocious
race has existed in the Philippine Islands. With regard to the Chinese,
who are supposed to be numerous in the capital, of late years they have
diminished so much, that according to a census made by orders of the
government in the year 1807, no more than four thousand seven hundred
are found on the registers; and, if in consequence of their secreting
themselves, or withdrawing into the interior, a third more might be
added to the above amount, their total numbers would still remain
very inconsiderable, and infinitely inferior to what is required,
not only for the tillage of the estates, but even for the royal works.

[Substitute laborers wanting.] As, therefore, the Japanese have totally
disappeared, and the number of Chinese is evidently inadequate to the
wants of agriculture, it almost necessarily follows that the practice
of distributing the Filipino laborers, as allowed by the aforesaid
laws of the Indies, under all circumstances, is the only alternate
left. Even if, against the adoption of this measure, it should be
attempted to urge the ambiguous sense of the concluding part of the
second clause, it would be easy to comprehend its true intent and
meaning, by referring to Law 1, Title 13, Book 5, which says:

"That, considering the inconveniences which would arise from doing
away with certain distributions of grounds,