Before preparing the foregoing statement relative to the reasons for
using Philippine constabulary soldiers instead of soldiers of the
United States army for police work during the period in question, I
asked Colonel J. G. Harbord, assistant director of the constabulary,
who has served with that body nine years, has been its acting director
and is an officer of the United States army, to give me a memorandum
on the subject. It is only fair to him to say that I have not only
followed very closely the line of argument embodied in the memorandum
which he was good enough to prepare for me, but have in many instances
used his very words. The parallel columns are his.
The constabulary soldier, thoroughly familiar with the topography
of the country in which he operates; speaking the local dialect and
acquainted with the persons most likely to be able and willing to
furnish accurate information; familiar with the characteristics of
his own people; able to live off the country and keep well, is under
all ordinary circumstances a more efficient and vastly less expensive
police officer than the American soldier, no matter how brave and
energetic the latter may be. Furthermore, his activities are much
less likely to arouse animosity.
Incidentally, the army is pretty consistently unwilling to take the
field unless the constitutional guarantees are temporarily suspended,
and it particularly objects to writs of habeas corpus.
Pages:
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517