diced b Jos e S. Arc a, - non

uary, he printed a notice of the creation by the government of a Board ofReforms of the administration of the Philippines, composed of JoaquinMontenegro y Guitart, Eugenio Aguera, Gabriel Alvarez, Luis Estrada,Federico Hoppe, Diego Suares, Vicente. Barrantes—as an expert—andPatricio de la Escosura, appointed the Board president.Reaction was not long in coming. The next day, the paper headlined itscomments on this plan with the significant title 'Treason," describing theBoard as a rubber stamp (mamarracho) and dedicating to Barrantes theunflattering epithets of "selfish champion of the religious orders," and "soulof reaction." Escosura and Luis Estrada got off just a little better.The controversery, however, continued. On 11 April space was given toManuel Regidor's letter on the question of representation in Cortes; on 24April, it began a series of about seven or eight articles titled "Studies Relatingto the Administration of the Philippines," apparently claimed by Antonio Ma.Regidor and his brother, Manuel; on 4 June, a new letter replying to thearticles published by Barrantes in El Imparcial, respectful but harsh, splashedwith ecclesiastical terminology; on 10 June, again another letter againstBarrantes and his ideas on the Philppine clergy.The last installment of the "Studies," which was perhaps the leastcontroversial, appeared on 17 August. Immediately, however, a newpolemicist, this time in answer to "Studies" and anonymous like all thewriters answering Barrantes, appeared. From here on, the controversybecame a bonfire, and rare was the day when the paper, through replies andcounter-replies, was not occupied with Philippine issues, especially in regardto the clergy. Joaquin de Coria appeared on 20, 21, 28 August, and 17September, signing his name at the end of his last letter.'"Six months later, Jose Burgos wrote a reply to these letters, althoughCoria had not mentioned Burgos or any other Filipino priest by name,published by the same newspaper on 20, 29, March, 12 April, and 11 May.10`Why so late?Burgos' letter reached the editors of La DiscusiOn on 12 March of thesame year, the date when he promised to publish his articles, the same datethat for the first time and in the same issue, the policies of Carlos Ma. de laTone were being attacked, among other reasons, because he had confiscatedseveral issues of La Epoca, La Repablica lberica, and La Discusion (whosecorresponding editor in Manila resigned for this reason), and had openedpersonal and private letters (allusion to what had happened to Burgos' mail?).La DiscusiOn continued its interest in Philippine affairs, always inimpassioned defense of the most progressive views throughout 18704871,160