Figure 11 [31] shows a specimen of provisional paper for 1840 - 1841 which was prepared by  applying a handstamp to unwatermarked “common paper”.  The “rubrica”  beneath the stamp prove that it is provisional paper. This provisional issue was revalidated for use for the biennial period 1851 - 1852. The design of the stamp differs  from  the  design of  the  stamp  of  the  regular  issue  of  1844-44. The design of the stamp of the regular issue is shown in  Figure 10. The sheet shown in Figure 13 was not used and at the end of the biennial period of 1844-45, a hole about 1.5 cm, in diameter was punched through the center of the stamp in order to invalidate the stamp in  accordance with the provision of Article 64 of the Royal Cedula of February 12, 1830. [32]

USE OF ADHESIVE STAMPS ON PROVISIONAL STAMPED PAPER

As already explained on pages ___, during the period from July 1. 1886 to December  31, 1887, adhesive stamps, both postage and revenue,  were  affixed  to  the  current  stamped  paper  in  order  to  compensate  for  the difference between the price of  the current stamped paper and the price of the stamped paper required by the Royal Decree of May 16, 1886.  For example, adhesive stamps of  the total valve of 12 pesos might be affixed to a sheet a of ILUSTRES stamped paper, whose price was 8 pesos, of the biennial  period of 1886-67. The  result  was  a  sheet of  stamped paper of the first class (SELLO 1) valued at 20 pesos, as required by the Royal Decree of May 16, 1886.

During this same period adhesive stamps, either postage, telegraph or revenue,  were frequently affixed to a sheet of “common” paper in order to produce provisional stamped paper of any required class and price. In this case the total value of the adhesive stamps affixed was the price of the paper.  Figure L shows a specimen of provisional SELLO 3, the price of which was 250 mil de peso, produced by affixing one 250 mil TELEGRAFOS stamp to a sheet of “common” paper. The manuscript cancel of “14 Mayo / de 1887” indicate when this this provisional SELLO 3 document was executed. 


Figure 12

ADHESIVE STAMPS ON DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO MORE THAN ONE STAMP TAX

The use of adhesive stamps to produce  provisional stamped paper should not be confused with the affixing of adhesive stamps to documents written on stamped paper in order to pay a stamp tax which was in addition to the requirement that the document be written upon stamped paper.  The stamp law required that public officials should collect a fee for signing certain documents. This fee was collected by affixing to such documents adhesive DEREGBOS DE FIRMA stamps for the amount of the fee. But law might also require that such documents be written  upon stamped paper. In this case the document would first be written upon stamped paper of the class required by law.  The adhesive DERECHOS DE FIRMA stamp would then be affixed to the stamped paper in payment of the “signature fee”.

The law required that deeds be written upon stamped paper, but if the deed acknowledged the receipt of a sum of money, an adhesive RECIBOS Y CUENTAS  stamp must be affixed to  the document after if had  been written upon the required stamped paper.  Such a document indicated the payment of two separate and distinct stamp taxes.

THE “RESSELADO” SURCHARGE

Figure 13 shows a specimen  of stamped paper of the regular issue of 1896-97 which bears two surcharges.  At the left of the stamp is an oval surcharge which reads “Habilitado Para el Bienio De 1898- 99)” (Made Valid for the Biennial Period of 1898-99). This surcharge undoubtedly was applied by the Spanish Government prior  to the occupation of Manila by the American forces in August 1898.  Across the face of the stamp is a second surcharge, which reads   “Resellado Para 1898-99” (Restamped for 1898-99).  This Resellado surcharge, which occurs in several different  forms and is also found on adhesive revenue stamps and on postage stamps, has been the subject of considerable controversy among collectors of Philippine postage stamps.  It appears, however, that at the time this controversy arose, the fact was unknown that the “Resellado” surcharge existed on adhesive revenue stamps and on stamped paper.  If this fact had been known it might have altered the conclusions of those who have claimed that the “Resellado” surcharge which occurs  on the Spanish-Philippine postage stamps of the issue of 1898 is a “fake” surcharge.


Figure 13

The revenue stamps and revenue stamped paper of the Philippines were not in demand among collectors in 1898.  Consequently there could have been no incentive  to  produce  a  “fake”  issue  of  revenue  stamps  and  stamped paper because there was very little likelihood that such a “fake” issue could be sold to collectors. Furthermore, if the alleged promoters of the so called “fake” issue of postage stamps bearing the “Resellado” surcharge had applied the “Resellado” surcharge to revenue stamps and stamped paper as a spurious means of giving the appearance of authenticity to the “Resellado” issue of postage stamps, full publicity would have been given by them to the “Resellado” surcharge as it occurs on revenue stamps and stamped paper.  Yet,  the existence of the  “Resellado” surcharge on revenue stamps and stamped paper seems to have been entirely  unknown to those who engaged in the controversy over the authenticity of the “Resellado” issue of postage stamps. 

The story of the “resellado” issue of postage stamps told by Major F. L. Palmer on page 53 of the “The Postal Issues of the Philippines” (J. M. Bartels Co., 1912) is as follows”
 

With the arrival of American troops at Cavite on July 16, 1898, an American Post Office was established temporarily on one of the ships in the Bay, and on July 30 on shore at Cavite.  From this date until the end of the following year, a veritable philatelic chaos existed in the Philippines. Mails were received and forwarded as opportunity offered, by all of the numerous “governments” involved, each of which used the stamps which were most available at the time.  As a result there were numerous vagaries in matters philatelic, and certain so-called philatelists contributed their aid (though not without hope of  reward) toward rendering confusion worse confused.  Thus we are compelled to consider not only the Spanish issues but also those of the United States for the American forces, the stamps issued by the Revolutionary Government, and certain “provisional” issues for the Philippines and other islands formerly controlled from  Manila.  Of the Spanish issues it is sufficient merely to add (to what has already been noted) that they continued in use where available until replaced by those of the government which later came to exercise actual control.  The issues of the Revolutionary Government will be treated in a  separate chapter, and those of the United States will follow.

Of the other issues referred to, the first to claim consideration, through priority in date, is the fake “provisional issue” for Zamboanga, a city in the island of Mindanao, which has been listed by Kehl and Galvez.  AS the true story of this issue seems never to been printed and is by no means without its humorous side, it will be given in detail as related to the writer by one of the two promoters thereof, who will be referred to as Messrs. A and B.

A and B, both well known philatelists  of Manila, realized that Manila must sooner or later surrender  to the  Americans, that Spanish rule would pass away, and that philatelic changes must ensue. Wishing to take time by the forelock, in order that any profits obtainable might not pass them by, they conceived a shortage of stamps at Zamboanga, where Mr.  B  had a personnel in the postmaster.  Mr. A was a former Spanish official who had friends in high places  at Manila, as be procured through them a decree providing for surcharging stamps for use at Zamboanga on the plea of the alleged shortage. This decree is said to have been issued on August 12, the day before the surrender of Manila; apparently the dies had been prepared and the stamps obtained in  advance, for the surcharging was done that night by the promoters themselves. Later, and when opportunity offered, these supplies (except those retained by A and B for their own philatelic uses) were forwarded to Zamboanga where they were (more or less) placed in use.  In March of 1899, Mr. B was in Zamboanga on business and his friend, the postmaster, then provided him with covers bearing these issues, which the postmaster obligingly cancelled as of quite a range of dates, presumably to avoid the monotony of one date only.  Mr. B thoughtfully placed a full set of this issue on a cover which he sent by registered mail to himself at his Manila address and which was forwarded by the same boat on which he returned. This letter was duly delivered to him in  Manila, without any other stamps or postal charge, through the American post office, thus furnishing undeniable (?) proof of recognition  by the American postal authorities of the validity of this issue.

Upon investigation by the writer himself at the post office, it was found that this letter (identified by its serial number) had been received and delivered without charge, though no memorandum existed as to what stamps it had borne.  In reply to questions  the postmaster, who had also been an employee in 1898-99, further  said that in those early days and until the American offices were established throughout the islands, the postal authorities felt themselves compelled to receive and deliver, or forward, all mail arriving at Manila without regard to what stamps were used from points where American offices (and stamps) were not available to the senders. He added that even letters bearing stamps  the Revolutionary Government had been so received and delivered.  Such delivery or forwarding, therefore, amounted merely to passing such matter through the mails without postage and on account of the emergency rather than to any official recognition of the validity of any stamps actually used.  In further pursuance of his investigation,  the writer visited the Bureau of Archives where search was made for the decree (or some record of it) authorizing this issue;  no trace of it could be found, but his does not disprove the issuance of such a decree, a failure to which is readily explicable as due to the carelessness of employees in a  time of so great turmoil.