YC) i! i. - I.Aii At, 1 X: # d an, 1 O.,8 C I 1f wee' I f I I I Z - W RI Independence for the Philippine Islands HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 204 A BILL PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS S. 3108 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND TO FORM A FREE AND INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. J. Res. 113 JOINT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO CALL A CONFERENCE ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION S. Res. 199 RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF TARIFF AUTONOMY FOR THE PHILIPPINES IN CONNECTION WITH HEARINGS RELATIVE TO THEIR INDEPENDENCE Part 1 JANUARY 15 AND 20, 1930 Printed for the use of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92109 WASHINGTON: 1930 I'^ * ^30 f~ Z COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST OONGRESS, SECOND SESSION HIRAM BINGHAM, Connecticut, Chairman HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada. ARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota. EDWIN S. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. JESSE H. METCALF, Rhode Island. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland. GUY D. GOFF, West Virginia. HARRY B. HAWES, Missouri. BRONSON M. CUTTING, New Mexico. HENRY M. BARRY, Clerk II IS D.: . -^ 30 CONTENTS Statement of- Page Frederick Brenckman, Washington representative, the National Grange-___ --- —-----— ____, --- —------ 110 Isauro Gabaldon, Delegate of the Philippine Independence League_.. 37 Chester H. Gray, American Farm Bureau Federation____ --- —_ _ 67 Hon. Pedro Guevara, Senior Resident Commissioner of the Philippine Islands_____ --- —---- ___ —_-_-_ ---— _ 5 Hon. Pedro Gil, member of the Philippine delegation and floor leader of the minority (Democrata) party in the Philippine House of Representatives ----— _- - ------------------------- 39 A. M. Loomis, secretary National Dairy Union. ___ — - — ____- 104 Hon. Manuel Roxas, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands,-._.-_-. — -—..-.- ------.._.._ 6 Brief of Judge Daniel R. Williams, of San Francisco, Calif __- - --- 44 - W. C. Hushing, Legislative Representative, American Federation of Labor -— _-_ --- —------------------— ___ 113 '!lii ' INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call of the chairman, in the committee room, the Capitol, at 10 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Nye, Vandenberg, Goff, Broussard, Pittman, Harris, Hayden, and Hawes. Also present: Senator King, of jtah. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. This meeting of the committee has been called in order to give an opportunity for hearings on all bills and joint resolutions that are before the Senate at the present time relating to the Philippine Islands. They will be printed at the beginning of the hearings. There is Senator King's bill, S. 204, providing for the withdrawal of the United States from the Philippine Islands; and Senator King's further bill, S. 2500, to enable the people of the Philippine Islands to adopt a constitution and to form a free and independent government; and another bill introduced by him, S. 3108, to enable the people of the Philippine Islands to adopt a constitution and to form a free and independent government. I should like to ask the Senator whether he desires all of these bills considered, or whether he considers that one of them takes the place of another bill? Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, the last bill, S. 3108, is the one which I should be happy for the committee to give consideration to. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand that you do not care to have the other two considered, then? Senator KING. Well, S. 3108 is simply a change in a few sentences from S. 2500; and S. 2500 elaborates a former bill which I introduced to meet what some conceived to be objections to the first bill or, rather, that the first bill did not include sufficient provisions for the protection of the United States. So to meet that view S. 2500 was offered. In examining it I saw there were some verbal changes needed, so I offered S. 3108. The CHAIRMAN. So there is no object in having S. 2500 printed? Senator KING. No. The CHAIRMAN. Then that will not be printed. In regard to SF 204, that is a very brief resolution which you offered last April? Senator KING. I should like that printed merely to show the change in the last bill from the one which I formerly offered. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. That will be done. * 2 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Also, S. J. Res. 113, introduced by the chairman of the committee, requesting the President to call a conference on the Philippine question. And also S. Res. 199, introduced by Senator Vandenberg yesterday, requesting the Senate to instruct the committee to include within the scope of its inquiry an investigation into the feasibility of tariff autonomy for the Philippine Islands. Senator Vandenberg's resolution will also be printed in the hearing. (The bills and resolutions, S. 204, S. 3108, S. J. Res. 113, and S. Res. 199 are printed in the record in full, as follows:) [S. 204, Seventy-first Congress, first session] A BILL Providing for the withdrawal of the United States from the Philippine Islands Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in conformity with the act entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands," approved August 29, 1916, the Philippine Legislature is hereby authorized to provide for a general election of delegates to a constitutional convention, which shall prepare and formulate a constitution for an independent republican government for the Philippine Islands, and that upon the ratification and promulgation of said constitution and the election of the officers therein provided for, and as soon as the government provided for under said constitution is organized and ready to function. the President of the United States shall recognize and proclaim the independence of the Philippine government under said constitution and shall notify the governments with which the United States is in diplomatic correspondence thereof, and shall invite said governments to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands, and that the President is directed to withdraw the military forces of the United States from said islands within six months after said proclamation recognizing the independence of said Philippine government. That the debts and liabilities of the Philippine government, its Provinces and municipalities and instrumentalities, which shall be valid and subsisting at the time of the approval of the proposed constitution shall be assumed by the government established thereunder. ' That if the Philippine government fails to pay any of its debts and liabilities referred to in the foregoing section or the interest thereon when due, the United States Government may thereupon take over the customs offices and administration of the same and apply such part of the revenue received therefrom as may be necessary for the payment of such overdue indebtedness or interest. When such overdue indebtedness, liability, or interest shall have been paid the United States Government shall restore to the Philippine government the control and administration of its customs offices and the revenues derived therefrom. [S. 3108, Seventy-first Congress, second session] A BILL To enable the people of the Philippine Islands to adopt a constitution and to form a free and independent government, and for other purposes Whereas the act entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands," approved August 29, 1916, declared it to be the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; and Whereas a stable government has been established and is being maintained in the Philippine Islands; and Whereas the Filipino people have petitioned the Government and people of the United States to declare the Philippine Islands free and independent: Therefore Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Philippine Legislature is hereby INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 3 authorized to provide for the election of delegates to a constitutional convention, which shall meet in the hall of the house of representatives in the capital of the Philippine Islands at such time as the Philippine Legislature may fix, to formulate and draft a constitution for a free and independent government of the Philippine Islands. The Philippine Legislature shall provide for the necessary expenses of such convention. SEw. 2. The constitution formulated and drafted by the constitutional convention shall, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, provide substantially as follows: (1) That the property rights of the United States in the Philippine Islands shall be promptly adjusted and settled, and that all existing property rights of citizens or corporations of the United States shall be acknowledged, respected, and safeguarded to the same extent as property rights of citizens of the Philippine Islands. (2) That the Philippine government will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States within two years after his proclamation recognizing the independence of the Philippine Islands. (3) That the officials elected pursuant to the provisions of this-act for the Philippine government to be formed under the constitution thereof shall be constitutional officers of said government and qualified to function in all respects as if elected directly pursuant to the provisions of the constitution, and shall serve their full terms of office as prescribed in the constitution. (4) That the debts and liabilities of the Philippine Islands, its Provinces, cities, municipalities, and instrumentalities, which shall be valid and subsisting at the time of the approval of the proposed constitution, shall be assumed by the government established thereunder; and that where bonds have been issued under authority of an act of Congress of the United States by the Philippine Islands or any Province, city, or municipality therein, the Philippine government will make adequate provisions for the necessary funds for the payment of interest and principal, and such obligations shall be a first lien on the taxes collected in the Philippine Islands. (5) That by way of further assurance the government of the Philippine Islands will embody the foregoing provisions (except paragraph 3) in a permanent treaty with the United States. SEC. 3. If a constitution is formed in compliance with the provisions of this act, the said constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Philippine Islands for their ratification or rejection, at an election to be held within four months after the completion of the constitution, on a date fixed by the Philippine Legislature, at which election the qualified voters of the Philippine Islands shall have an opportunity to vote directly for or against the proposed constitution, or for or against any proposition separately submitted. Such election shall be held in such manner as may be prescribed by the Philippine Legislature, to which the return of the election shall be made. The Philippine Legislature shall by law provide for the canvassing of the return and if a majority of the votes cast on that question shall be for the constitution, shall certify the result to the Governor General of the Philippine Islands, together with a statement of the votes cast thereon, and upon separate propositions, and a copy of said constitution, propositions, and ordinances. SEC. 4. The Governor General of the Philippine Islands shall, within sixty days after the receipts of such certification, issue a proclamation for the election of the officials provided for in the constitution, such election to take place not earlier than ninety days nor later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of the proclamation of the Governor General. The election of such officials shall be held in such manner as may be prescribed by the Philippine Legislature. SEC. 5. The returns of the election of the officials for the independent government of the Philippine Islands shall be certified by the Governor General of the Philippine Islands to the President of the United States, who shall, within sixty days after the receipt of such certification, issue a proclamation reciting the facts of the formation of the constitution for the Philippine Islands and the election of the officials provided for in such constitution as hereinbefore provided, announcing the results of such election, and designating a time, not earlier than six months and not later than one year after the date of the issuance of such proclamation, when the government of the Philippine Islands will be turned over to the duly elected officers, and such officers will begin to function under the constitution. At the time designated in such proclama 4 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tion the President of the United States shall withdraw and surrender all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control, or sovereignty then existing and exercised by the United States in and over the territory and people of the Philippine Islands, and, on behalf of the United States, shall recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self-governing nation and acknowledge the authority and control over the same of the government instituted by the people thereof, except that the President shall reserve to the United States such lands and rights and privileges appurtenant thereto as may at the time of the transfer be possessed by the United States as naval bases or coaling stations. SEc. 6. Upon the proclamation and recognition of the independence of the Philippine Islands under their constitution, the President shall notify the governments with which the United States is in diplomatic correspondence thereof and invite said governments to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands. [S. J. Res. 113, Seventy-first Congress, second session] JOINT RESOLUTION Requesting the President to call a conference on the Philippine question Whereas the question of the future status of the Philippine Islands has never been explicitly determined by the Congress of the United States; and Whereas the question has constitutional as well as economic and political aspects; and Whereas it is important for the economic and political future of the Philippine Islands that this question be decided wisely and definitely as soon as possible: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is requested to call a conference on questions affecting the Philippine Islands, to meet in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, on September 15, 1930, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, the membership of the conference to consist of eight representative citizens of the United States, and eight representative citizens of the Philippine Islands, to be appointed by the President of the United States. including three Members of the Senate of the United States. three Members of the House of Representatives of the United States, three members of the Senate of the Philippine Islands, three members of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands, and four others as selected by the President. The conference shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members. For the purpose of this resolution the conference is authorized to hold hearings and to sit and act at such times and places within the Philippine Islands or the United States, to employ such experts, and clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses, and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, to take such testimony, and, subject to the approval of the President, to make such expenditures as it deems advisable. SEC. 2. It shall be the duty of the conference to report to the President for transmission to the Congress of the United States the result of its deliberations, together with its recommendations for legislation. Such report shall be made not later than one year from the date of the passage of this joint resolution. SEc. 3. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended at the discretion of the President of the United States. for the purpose of carrying this joint resolution into effect. [S. Res. 199. Seventy-first Congress, second session] RESOLUTION Whereas the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs contemplates immediate inquiry into the question of independence for the Philippine Islands; and Whereas economic self-sufficiency must exist in order ta justify and maintain a permanent status of independence; and INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 5 Whereas this economic self-sufficiency requires the effectual maintenance of native Philippine trade without the benefit of free American markets, and in readjusted contacts with the markets of the world; and Whereas this self-sufficiency can only be achieved by the successful erection and operation of an independent tariff structure by and for the Philippine Islands: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs be instructed to include within the scope of its inquiry an investigation into the feasibility of tariff autonomy for the Philippine Islands as a final and essential demonstration of such economic self-sufficiency as will justify subsequent independence at the earliest possible date. The CHAIRMAN. The first witness this morning will be the senior Resident Commissioner from the Philippine Islands, Sefior Pedro Guevara. STATEMENT OF HON. PEDRO GUEVARA, SENIOR RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. GITEVARA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am privileged to fulfill the pleasant duty of advising this committee of the presence of a delegation sent by the Philippine Legislature to the United States. This delegation is composed of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands, Hon. Manuel Roxas, and of Representative Pedro Gil, floor leader of the opposition party in that chamber. This delegation has traveled approximately 10,000 miles from Manila to Washington as messengers of the good will of the Filipino people toward the American people, and to convey to them their undying faith and loyalty to their history and traditions. This delegation also has come to the United States to cooperate with this committee in its deliberations on the Philippine situation and to furnish all the facts and information that it may be required to give in order that a fair and just solution of our common problem may be reached. Speaker Roxas, head of the delegation, is well known by the members of this committee. Several times he has appeared before you to discuss important questions affecting the relations between the.United States and the Philippine Islands. This committee has heard him on more than one occasion, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to say anything else about him. As to the other member of the delegation, Representative Pedro Gil, I wish to say that he is one of the ablest men in the Philippine Islands. He is brilliant and patriotic and I can assure this committee that we will prove that both political parties in the Philippine Islands are united for independence. His counsel and advice are of great value in these momentous days when it seems that at least a discussion of the Philippine situation will take place in the forum of the American people. I do not feel inclined to discuss now the Philippine situation for it is my sincere and profound conviction that Speaker Roxas and Representative Gil are in a better position to state existing conditions in the Philippine Islands than I, and it is but just to let them give you first-hand information on the subject. Besides Speaker Roxas is an acknowledged leader of the Filipino people and no better man than he can speak their minds and sentiments. 6 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS With this brief statement, I wish to conclude by introducing to this committee Speaker Manuel Roxas and Representative Pedro Gil. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Speaker, do you wish to be heard now? Mr. RoxAs. At the convenience of the committee, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chester Gray was to come on first, but in the absence of Mr. Gray, we shall be glad to hear the Speaker. STATEMENT OF HON. MANUEL ROXAS, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. RoxAS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my first words shall be of grateful appreciation to the members of this committee on behalf of the people of the Philippine Islands for this new opportunity to present the conditions obtaining in the Philippine Islands and to voice the sentiments of their people. I desire especially to express our acknowledgment to the distinguished chairman, whose sense of justice and abiding interest in our welfare has made possible the holding of these hearings that the United States Senate may vote directly and intelligently on the Philippine question during the present session of Congress. We are aware of the many important and pressing problems engaging the attention of the Government and people of America at this time. These problems affect the welfare and happiness of your people, the permanence of your institutions, and the enduring peace of the world. Nevertheless, always mindful of the self —imposed obligations contracted by this great Republic in its relations with the Philippines, Congress has found time to consider this momentous problem which concerns an alien people. But we are 13,000,000 of human beings over whom this country has assumed a noble and disinterested guardianship, over whom you hold sway, and whose very life is yours to command. Keenly conscious of your duties, completely justifying the unswerving confidence and faith of the Filipino people, you have lent a sympathetic ear to their petitions that their fate and their future be no longer left undefined and unsolved. For this we will be eternally grateful. No matter what the outcome of the deliberations may be, while still striving for our freedom, we will continue to feel that America's heart is with us and her flag waving gloriously over the Philippines will as in the old days mean to every man, woman, and child of our country the unchallenged symbol of liberty and democracy which it is America's sacred mission to spread over the world. As soon as the Philippine Legislature was informed that the United States Senate had virtually agreed to discuss the Philippine problem during the present regular session a joint committee was constituted for the purpose of presenting the views of the Filipino people on that important question. Both political parties in the Philippines are represented in said committee. The Hon. Pedro Gil, minority floor leader in the house of representatives, with the Philippine Resident Commissioners and myself, speak for that committee at these hearings. Our instructions, approved unanimously in both houses, enjoin us to petition Congress to recognize the independence of the Philippines at an early date. INDEPENDENC(E FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 7 That Congress should consider the present time propitious for a final determination of the Philippine question is wholly in accord with the prevailing sentiment in this country and is gratifying to the Filipinos and to all those who have their best interest at heart. Further delay can serve no useful purpose and can benefit neither the United States nor the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, it may give rise to a misconception of America's real and true purpose toward the Philippines. Action at this time in consonance with American principles and traditions and her formal commitments to the world would strengthen her moral leadership and greatly facilitate the achievement of that new standard of morality, high-mindedness, and justice which it is America's aim to establish in dealings among nations. Let America grant the Philippines its freedom, and no nation shall again attempt to subjugate a weak people for purely selfish ends. America's action would operate as a lever to raise international relations to that plane of mutual respect, tolerance, and righteousness which governs relations between honest and selfrespecting individuals. Moreover, that act of altruism would allay suspicion everywhere as to America's foreign policy; it would greatly enhance her prestige and moral influence in South and Central America, and would forever make impossible the recurrence of wars impelled merely by covetousness and greed. For still other considerations it is important that Philippine independence be granted at this time. An independent Philippines will be a monument to America's unselfishness. It would be an inspiration to all the subject peoples of the world who are striving for their freedom the achievement of which this new age has accepted to be better conducive to peace and safety. Moreover, the Philippines, trained in the principles of popular government and democracy, will be the broadcasting station of those dynamic ideas and tendencies in that part of the world. That government would be an inspiration to the peoples of the Orient and if, as a consequence, governments by popular initiative and consent are established in the neighboring countries, America shall have rendered its greatest contribution to civilization, mankind, and enduring world peace. That such will be the result can be hopefully expected, for democracy appeals to all self-respecting peoples in a manner which can not be long unheeded. President Schurman, of the First Philippine Commission, said: The destiny of the Philippine Islands is not to be a State or a Territory in the United States of America but a daughter republic of ours-a new birth of liberty on the other side of the Pacific, which shall animate and energize those lovely islands of the tropical seas, and, rearing its head aloft, stand as a monument of progress and a beacon of hope to all the oppressed and benighted millions of the Asiatic Continent. With regard to the Filipinos themselves such action is vitally important. The indefiniteness and uncertainty of the status of the islands is preventing the investment of capital, hindering the development of the country, and greatly paralyzing progress. Former Governor General Stimson recognized this fact when he said in his report for 1924: There is "hesitancy of foreign capital to enter the islands while their future political status is deemed to be uncertain." Why such should be the result of the present indefinite situation is obvious. Under the present relations between the United States and .8 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS the Philippines Congress, reserving the power to regulate trade between the two countries, has established the present free-trade reciprocity. To every investor in the Philippines it is important to know how long such relations will continue. If he desires to produce:articles protected in the American market he would be taking tremendous risks were he to engage in the venture without any assurance as to the time during which such market would be open to his products. Briefly, the Philippines is bound to suffer economic paralyzation until its status is finally determined. But it may be asked: Why does not the Philippines confine her production to articles which do not depend upon the protection of the American tariff and which may be profitably sold at competitive prices in the open markets of the world? This question has deserved the serious and thoughtful consideration of the Filipinos. Although it would involve an injustice to compel them not to benefit themselves of the American protected market while their tariff walls are protecting American imports virtually to the same extent that they are protected in the United States, they would take this course if it were feasible under the present circumstances. They have. however. reached the conclusion that such a course is impossible. The Philippines to-day is surrounded by a high-tariff wall. as has been said. approximately as high as that of this country. And it is a tariff that protects principally American products and manufactures. What is the result? The cost of living in the Philippines is very muich higher than that prevailing in other oriental countries. Wages are also higher. The result is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Philippines to compete with other oriental countries in the production of articles which will be sold outside of America's tariff wall. Only when the Philippine Islands shall have become independent, when they shall be free to adopt a trade policy suited to their own peculiar interests, and are able to establish standards of wages and living costs commensurate with the necessity to compete with their neighbors, shall they be able to produce agricultural products and manufactures on a'competitive basis. As it is, as long as 62 per cent of all the foreign goods that the islands consume come from the United States and are sold in the Philippines at American prices plus transportation and other expenses, such an expedient is impossible. The present agitation in the United States seeking to restrict free Philippine imports or to levy duty on all such imports has served to render more acute the plight of Philippine industries and to bring home to the Filipino people in its real and true colors the realization of the utterly precarious conditions under which they live. Not alone are they fearful of the stability of new investments, but they are now confronted with the possibility that through an action of the Congress they may be deprived of the American market even for the products that they now produce. It is no relief that the present prevailing sentiment in Congress would clearly discountenance any plan which may discriminate against Philippine products, for the mere possibility, however remote. that such an action may be taken is an element of uncertainty in the Philippine economic situation, the disturbing effects of which it is difficult to underestimate. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE iPHILIPPINE ISLANDS In 1909 when the first proposition to bring the Philippine Islands inside the tariff walls of this country was discussed, the question was seriously debated in the Philippines. We then thought that that action would bring about both favorable and unfavorable results for the Philippines. Weighing those results in the balance of the best judgment of that country, with the interests and the freedom of the Philippines in mind, there was passed a unanimous resolution by the Philippine assembly opposing that proposition. Why t For two reasons: First, because we thought that no country can develop its resources with any degree of stability unless it has the power to formulate a well-defined economic policy with a view to promoting the interests of that country as the paramount consideration. And, second, because it would create such intimate commercial relations between the Philippine Islands and the United States, that our economic system would be interwoven into the warp and fiber of your own economic system, that when the time came for us to extricate ourselves from that union, it might result in ruin to our country. We also had in mind that we were longing for independence and that it was better for us to live under conditions which would best prepare us for it. But what hapened, Mr. Chairman? In spite of our opposition free trade was established between the United States and the Philippine Islands. It is but natural, once that was done, that our industries should develop so as to take advantage of the American market. The production of sugar, coconut oil, and tobacco was stimulated. Senator HAYDEN. That was in 1907? Mr. RoxAs. That was in 1909, sir. The development of these industries has been slow; in fact. our sugar industry only reached a point of decided development about seven or eight years ago. That is so for several reasons: First, because our sugar industry was almost totally ruined as a consequence of the revolution against Spain and the war against the United States. Another reason is the fact that the United States did not establish a definite policy with regard to Philippine production until the tariff act of 1913 was passed. But you will remember that that tariff law provided that in 1916, I believe, sugar was to be on the free tariff list. That, of course, discouraged the development of the industry until that provision was repealed. What happens now, Mr. Chairman? Now that we are starting to benefit ourselves from this trade relationship with the United States, you see a determined effort to tax our imports into this country, or, at least, to limit the amount of such free imports. In justice to our people, I ask, can there be stability in the Philippines under this situation? Is there any man who will invest his capital in the Philippine Islands in the promotion of any industry dependent on the American market while this agitation goes on? What assurance does he have as to how long this market will be open} to him? Under such circumstances progress and development is impossible; And I ask, Is it the desire of the United States to maintain sovereignty over the Philippine Islands under those conditions, working an injury rather than a benefit to our people?. 10 IND!EPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS We feel that it is the desire of America to remain in the Philippines so long-and only so long-as she can be useful to those islands. Once the American people realize that the American flag in the Philippines can no longer serve a useful purpose American sovereignty will be withdrawn. It is with that conviction that I come to you and say that under the present circumstances, aside from any duty to free the Philippine Islands in accordance with the desire of their people, the United States could be more helpful to them if she were to withdraw her sovereignty now, rather than to permit their progress to lurk in stagnation. On the other hand. the campaign against Philippine imports carried on in this country by many and important influences, representing not only agricultural but also industrial interests, is an honest and determined effort to protect American products and manufacturers with which it is believed Philippine imports come into direct competition. Such a campaign, started barely three years ago, has now attained national proportions, forcing the Philippine question into the category of an important domestic problem which will continually demand the attention of the American people. If it be true that Philippine imports may compete injuriously with American products, it is only right that American producers be apprised as to how long and to what extent they will have to meet that competition. These interests have come to realize that it is neither right nor just to pass legislation which would discriminate against Philippine imports or deny them free entry into the United States while the Philippines remain under the American flag. For this reason, these elements, actuated by a desire to do justice to the Philippines and at the same time to protect themselves from the alleged menace of Philippine competition, are urging independence for the Philippine Islands. We do not believe that that movement is inspired merely by selfishness; if there is a degree of selfishness in that movement, it is a selfishness which any honest man need not be ashamed of. We maintained during the hearings on the tariff that Philippine imports into the United States were not a menace to any important American industry. We maintained that sugar production in the Philippine Islands had about reached its maximum level. We do not expect that in the near future there will be a sudden abnormal increase in production, for many reasons: First, capital will not invest in sugar while this agitation continues. Any business man will admit that fact. Second, labor conditions are such as to make extensions of sugar plantations most difficult. Third, world overproduction is pulling prices down. Fourth, our land-law restrictions preclude the opening up of new sections suitable to the production of sugar, because we prevent any corporation in the Philippine Islands from owning more than 1,024 hectares of land-that is to say, 2,500 acres. We not only forbid' corporations from buying government land in excess of that amount, but we absolutely forbid any corporation from owning more than 2,500 acres. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be frank. Once you give the impression that the United States may retain the Philippines permanently under the American flag, it would not be improbable for American capital to go to the Philippine Islands and heavily invest in sugar. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 11 Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Speaker, do the limitations upon ownership apply also to leasing? Mr. ROXAS. No corporation can lease more than 1,024 hectares of government land. That is the limit. Senator HAYDEN. That is, a private landowner or a group of private landowners, could not combine their lands and lease more than 2,500 acres to one corporation? Mr. ROXAS. Yes; they could, Senator. The government could not lease more than 2,500 acres to one corporation. Senator HAYDEN. Then your land laws in the Philippines apply only to the government lands? Mr. Roxas. The language of the law is that a corporation can not own or control more than 2,500 acres of land. I am not prepared to say definitely whether a corporation could not lease from private owners a larger acreage. Off-hand I would say that that would be prohibited. Our land law restrictions are the result of our experience during Spanish sovereignty, when we fought several revolutions because of the serious agrarian problems due to the fact that a great part of the lands of the Philippine Islands was owned by a few individuals and corporations. For this reason, soon after the implantation of American sovereignty, the first act of the Philippine government was to buy over for the government the greater portion of the land held by religious corporations. The government paid around 20,000,000 pesos for this land. Senator HAYDEN. That is, for the so-called Friar lands? Mr. RoxAs. The Friar lands. And we would like to persist in that policy. We believe that a gradual development by small land holders would be better to insure stable economic progress and the happiness of our people. Senator HAWES. Mr. Speaker, you stated some limitations on the output of sugar and other commodities as a result of legislation and the limitation of the use of lands, and some restrictions. And I would like to know if those restrictions were removed, if the land, itself, is not there for a much larger output? I mean, you have tillable soil? Mr. ROXAS. Yes; we have. Senator HAWES. In what proportion do you think it exists as against the cultivated area now? I mean by that, could you double it, or increase it to what per cent? Mr. RoxAs. You mean to say, how much tillable land do we have in the Philippines? Senator HAWES. Yes. Mr. RoxAs. The Philippines comprise an area of about 114,000 square miles. Out of that 8,000,000 hectares is private property; a hectare is about two and a half acres. Out of the 8,000,000 hectares privately owned, 4,000,000 hectares are actually under cultivation. Our total land area is about 73,215,766 acres, divided as follows39,302,162 acres is commercial forest; 15,834,157 acres is grass and open land; 9,174,139 acres is cultivated land; 7,201,353 acres is noncommercial forest; 3,034,747 acres is unexplored land; 669,325 acres is mangrove swamp. Senator HAwES. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see if you can tell me whether the land now in cultivation-at least, approximatelycould be doubled or trebled with the necessary capital? 12 INDEPEN)DENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. RoxAs. Do you refer especially to sugar? Senator HAWES. Well, sugar first; take that first. Mr. RoxAs. I think it could, Senator, but not immediately. Senator HAWEs. No; but — Mr. ROXAS (interposing). I mean to say, the greatest increase in the production will come not from the application of a larger area of land to the cultivation of sugar, but to the intensification of cultivation of the lands already cultivated. For example, sugarSenator HAWES (interposing). Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt you, but I mean this: Eliminating from your mind now the machinery of government and the restrictions, and all those things, do you think there is a double capacity or a treble capacity for agriculture which has not been developed, although that development could take 25 years or 50 years Mr. ROXAS. Yes; positively. Senator HAWES. So there is no physical limitation on your output? Mr. RoXAS. Well. no absolute physical limitations as to the output, although it is still very difficult to induce people to go into certain regions of the Philippines that have not been opened up, because of malaria. But if a big corporation establishes sanitation in those regions, probably they would. Senator HAWES. Could you just answer my question, then, and say whether in youlr opinion, with the expenditure of money and capital, you could increase your acreage to twice or three times its present acreage in sugar? Mr. ROxAs. I think so, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. That was not the impression we gathered in the hearings on the Finance Committee; the impression we gathered at that time, as I remember it, was that there was about the same acreage to-day as there was under the Spanish regime. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, Senator; you are right. The CHAIRMAN. And the ability to get more sugar lands and cultivate more sugar would not double the amount of acreage, under the present depreciation in sugar? Mr. RoXAS. You are right, Senator; but the question was whether there is land available in the Philippine Islands to duplicate or triplicate production, and I say that there is. I admit, and I have so stated, that I do not expect that there will be a sudden increase in the production of sugar in the Philippines in the near future. The increase will come gradually. It will come from an intensive cultivation of lands already devoted to the cultivation of sugar rather than from the opening up of new lands. The CHAIRMAN. The impression that I received from testimony given before the Finance Committee was that notwithstanding all the advantages of American ownership and occupation, the amount of land occupied by sugar plantations has not materially increased since the Spanish days, although the production has increased due to improved methods of cultivation. I also got the impression that although there was a large amount of land that might be used for agricultural purposes, including the raising of rubber and other tropical products, the amount that was practicable for sugar cultivation is not very much larger than that at present used. Apparently, I received a wrong impression, according to what you just said to Senator Hawes. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 13 Mr. RoxAS. Senator Hawes asked me, Mr. Chairman, whether there was land available in the Philippines that could be devoted to the cultivation of sugar. I admit that there is. The CHAIRMAN. Is the economic reason the only reason that the land is not occupied? Mr. RoxAS. There are economic reasons and legal reasons and labor conditions. The CHAIRMAN. Of what do the legal reasons consist? Mr. ROXAS. Mr. Chairman, our laws do not permit corporations to own or control more than a limited amount of land, and anybody who knows how the sugar industry is being conducted will be convinced that no new regions to be devoted to the cultivation of sugar can be opened up, unless cane is actually grown over a territory well in excess of 2,500 acres. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, one of the chief obstacles is that great increase in the amount of sugar lands or in the development of the present tropical forests into sugar plantations, would require a large number of small owners to go in and raise cane to be sold to centrals. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that the difficulties are such as to discourage them from doing it? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Whereas if the laws were changed so as to permit large corporations to acquire 15,000 or 20,000 acres of land, with the capital back of such corporations, there might be a great increase in the development of sugar land? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. But the attitude of the Filipino people toward that has been so affected by the entry of forest land that there is not the slightest chance that they will permit it. Mr. ROXAS. No, sir. Governor Stimson referred to that in his report to the President. He said that the sentiment in favor of the present land laws was very strong in the Philippine Islands, and that any American official who thought that he could induce the legislature or the Philippine people to enlarge the acreage that may be acquired by corporations is greatly mistaken. Senator HAWES. But if you were given permission to do with your land what you pleased and you could make it blossom and grow the legislature might change its mind and enable you to develop all the resources of your islands, which you say are two or three times that now in use? Mr. RoxAs. That is our desire. Senator BROUSSARD. You would like to see your islands fully developed, would you not Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be willing to do it at the expense of changing the land laws? Mr. RoxAs. No, sir; we would never change our land laws; there is a historical reason for that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hawes just put you in the position of stating that you would be willing to do anything to develop your country economically. 92109-30-PT 1 2 14 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. ROXAS. We would be willing to do anything that would help our people, Mr. Chairman. Senator PITTMAAN. How things change. A long time ago this State was entirely opposed to prohibition. It seems now that they are entirely in favor of it. Mr. RoxAs. Senator, no one was killed in this country in a war with a foreign people for prohibition. We lost thousands in the revolutions against Spain as a protest against the ownershii) by corporations of large tracts of land in the Philippine Islands: I think that is the last concession the Philippines would ever grant. I was going to give the following figures, Mr. Chairman. to show that efforts in the Philippines to-day will be directed toward increasing yields per acre rather than to extend cane cultivation. The present yield in the Philippines is about 1.3 short tons per acre as compared with the yield in Porto Rico of 3 short tons per acre, 2 short tons in Cuba, and 7 short tons in Hawaii and Java. This is the reason why we say that even with the present tariff protection the sugar business in the Philippine Islands is not as profitable as many people in the United States believe. Our cost of production is twice that of Cuba, certainly more than twice that of Java. Our cost of production is over 4 cents a pound. Senator HAWES. Mr. Speaker, there is a deliberate attempt being made to confuse the minds of the people of the United States on one subject, and that is that you have reached an agricultural limitation in the Philippines in the production of sugar and other products. I want to establish through you, the speaker of the house of representatives, that that is a misstatement and not a fact; that there ale immense possibilities. Mr. RoxAS. I suppose, Senator Hawes, that that statement should be taken in a relative sense. Under present conditions there will be no sudden increase in agricultural production in the Philippines. If the present situation is maintained, Senator, production in the Philippines, rather than increase, will have a tendency to decline. There is a business depression in the islands to-day. We are now feeling the effects of the agitation against our free imports into the United States. I will admit that there will be a gradual increase in production, but such increase will come from investments already made and as a result of improved methods of cultivation rather than from new investments or extensions. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say earlier in your testimony that when the question of free sugar was under consideration in the United States, in about 1912 or 1913, it hurt your sugar business in the Philippines very materially. Mr. RoxAS. I did not say that, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry if I was misunderstood. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I said this: In 1895 our sugar production reached its peak under Spanish sovereignty. After that time, as a consequence of the revolution against Spain, and later, of the war against the United States, the sugar industry in the Philippines was almost wiped out. The CHAIPRMAN. Yes; but what was it that you said in connection with the tariff bill of 1913? Mr. RoxAs. After that period of unrest and disorder in the Philippines, the people started to return to their farms and began to INDEPENDENCE FOIR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 15 cultivate their lands. In 1904, for example, when the country was completely pacified, we produced only 34,000 long tons. In 1905, that production increased to 85,000. In 1910 we produced 137,000 tons. There was no decided effort to increase production, because in 1909 there was still a limitation as to the amount of sugar which could be imported into the United States free of duty. In 1913 this restriction was removed. Still there was no determined effort to increase production, evidently because under the tariff act of 1913 it was provided that sugar would be placed on the free list in 1916. As it would not have been profitable to produce sugar in competition with Cuba and Java; there was no desire to expand production at that time. Only when that provision placing sugar on the free list was repealed was there a decided effort to increase production of sugar in the islands. But now we have the present agitation against Philippine free imports. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the effect on your sugar business next year if this Congress were to grant tariff autonomy to the Philippine Islands? Mr. RoxAs. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on that question now. If in 1909 we had been given tariff autonomy, we would have accepted it. Senator VANDENBERG. Do I understand that the legislature did ask for it in 1909? Mr. RoxAs. We asked that the Congress should not establish free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Would the Philippine Legislature ask that again to-day? Mr. RoxAs. We would not ask it again to-day because it would be injurious to our interests. To impose it would be unjust to the Philippine people. Senator, for the last 20 years you have compelled us to develop our country subject to these tariff laws; and, now when we are beginning to benefit ourselves in a proper measure from the reciprocal advantages which free trade entails, it is proposed that we be cut off from this market, while at the same time being retained under the American flag. We are admitting free of duty American imports into the Philippine Islands. As a consequence, the cost of living in the Philippine Islands is much higher than in other neighboring oriental countries. This fact makes it difficult for us to place sugar on a competitive basis; that I admit, but we are asking for independence now, because we feel that inasmuch as our people will always have that aspiration we prefer that independence be granted now when we have the capacity to stand the shock which a sudden change of relationship with the United States would bring about, rather than wait for, say, 10 years from now when we would be producing probably a greater amount of sugar and coconut oil and cigars, and when it would be very much more difficult for our people to stand that shock. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would prefer not to have your sugar business grow and prosper under present arrangements. You realize that if the tariff wall were erected against you by tariff autonomy it would cut off your best market for oil and sugar? 16 - NI)DEPENDENCE FOR TTHE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. RoxAs. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you would prefer that those industries should not go ahead and prosper for the next few years and get you deeper into them only to be ruined ultimately by tariff autonomy or independence? Mr. RoxAS. We prefer to accept the dire consequences, if there be any, which independence will bring to us now rather than remain under present conditions. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that; but I was asking you with regard to tariff autonomy and not with regard to independence. Mr. ROXAS. I want to say, speaking for our delegation, and I am sure also for the people and the Legislature of the Philippine Islands. that we are opposed to that proposition. The CHAIRMIAN. Which proposition? Mr. ROxAs. Tariff autonomy. Every advocate of the continuance of American sovereignty over the Philippines opposes independence because, with the loss of the American market, Philippine industries would be ruined. Senator HAWES. Mr. Speaker, you do not weigh independence against sugar, as I understand it. You would rather have your independence notwithstanding any consequence that might come with it? Mr. RoxAs. Senator, we would stake our very lives on independence. We have fought more than 100 revolutions to be free. Senator HAWES. And you are willing to make any sacrifice on sug'ar or coconut oil. or anything else, in order that you may be a free people? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, Senator. But do not have any apprehension that the Filipinos will die if we lose this market. Anybody who works a few hours a day in the Philippines can live well. Perhaps we could not continue using high-priced automobiles or wearing American shoes, silks, or other articles manufactured in this country, but even that would have a good effect on our people. It will compel them to develop their own industries. Senator HAWES. As I understand you, you would make any sacrifice, including sugar or coconut oil or anything else, in order that you may be a free people? Mr. ROXAS. Absolutely. Senator HAWES. Is there any division of sentiment amongst any of the Filipino leaders other than you have now expressed? Mr. RosAs. There is no such division. Mr. Gil is the floor leader of the opposition party in the Philippines. He will tell you, Senator, that his party as well as our party-and there are only two political parties in the Philipines-are united in these sentiments. Senator IHAES. All the Filipinos of every branch and every faction are united? IMr. RoxAS. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. And it is only the persons that are temporarily residing in the Philippines that are opposed to your independence? Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose you had independence to-morrow, would you not be confronted with precisely the same economic hazard that you would be confronted with under tariff autonomy? Mr. RosXA. Yes, Senator; with this difference, that if we had our independence we would have the power to enter into conventions with other countries in order to obtain advantages for our products INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 17 in foreign markets. Besides, real tariff autonomy for the Philippines can not be possible under the present status. The legislature does not exclusively exercise the legislative power in the Philippines. The legislature can not pass a law over the veto of the Governor General. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you not think it would be helpful to your ultimate independence status if you should develop your tariff structure before you had to face the problem of the world's markets? Mr. RoxAs. That would imply that we would become independent some time. Senator VANDENBERG. It certainly would. Mr. RoxAs. Would you state it in your resolution? Senator VANDENBERG. I certainly would. It would be a part of the plan, so far as I am concerned. Mr. RoxAS. Well, Senator,, if tariff autonomy is proposed with a view to independence, say, in two years, probably that would be considered acceptable. Senator VANDENBERG. Would it not be preferable? Mr. RoxAs. We would prefer to have our independence first, Senator. Witlh the granting of tariff autonomy serious difficulties may arise. I am going to speak very frankly, because this is a matter -which probably no Member of the Congress can properly understand unless he has been in the Philippines and been in contact with the situation there. If the Philippine Legislature proposed to tax certain American imports, which tax would injure the business of Americans in the islands, that would create such a tense situation between Americans and Filipinos that no Governor General would approve such a measure, even were it to protect important Philippine industries. Senator VANDENBERG. In order ultimately to have a successful independence, of course, you would have to develop this economic structure, would you not? Mr. RoxAs. Yes, Senator. Senator VANDENBERG. And that would take time, would it not? Mr. RoxAs. I think it would. Senator VANDENBERG. And during that period of flux you would be in desperate straits? Mr. RoxAs. Not necessarily desperate, but we would face serious disturbances of economic character. Senator VANDENBERG. Therefore, if that economic diffculty could -be anticipated so that you would be ready to face the world when you received your independence, would not your independence be that much more stable? Mr. RoxAs. But what would be left of benefit to the Philippine Islands under the American flag after you have excluded them from the American market by granting them tariff autonomy? Senator VANDENBERG. I am speaking now of autonomy as a precedent to independence, with independence following as a natural and,essential course. Are you not better off under those circumstances from your own standpoint? Mr. RoxAs. I do not believe we would be, because the tariff autonomy that you would grant us would not permit us to get in touch with foreign countries in order to obtain concessions for our products. 18 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator SANDENBERG. Suppose that that were included. For the sake of the argument, let us say that we are permitting you to develop your new economic picture. Are you not better off when you become independent, if your economic picture has been developed in that way, because are you not sure then of being able to prove your self-sufficiency and prove your ability to remain independent? Mr. RoxAs. You may be right, but we believe it is not necessary for us to undergo that stage, for this reason, Senator: The same dire and disastrous results which independence will bring upon our industries will be the outcome of tariff autonomy. They will be just the sane, and I submit that we shall be in a better position to stand those disturbing consequences if we were absolutely independent than if we continued under the American flag. Senator BROUSSARD. I gather that the only calamity that might befall you would be to sever your relations now on the economic basis, but where you are granted autonomy you are worse off because you are not independent. Mr. RoxAs. That is my feeling, Senator. It is being urged by some that the alleged instability obtaining in the Philippine economic situation is of no real consequence, for a similar reasoning would show the same instability in economic conditions in this country, Congress having the power to alter them. However, an important distinction between the two instances exists. In the case of the United States. Congress is the creature of the American people, is responsible to their will and desires, and is moved by the purpose to serve their interest as the paramount consideration. In the case of the Philippines, it is not the free Filipino people legislating through their representatives that regulate their trade relations with the United States, but the United States Congri1ess over whom they have no power and in the election of whose lMembers they take no part. The Filipino people have no representation in Congress and are destitute of political power to influence in the determination of their relationship with the United States. The desire of the Filipinos for irdependence implies neither dissatisfaction with America nor the attitude of the American people toward them. It is in response to a very natural desire in a people with national consciousness and a feeling of self-respect and dignity. But this desire is not prompted entirely by idealistic sentiments. The Filipinos are also moved by practical considerations. In the first place, they have awakened to the realization of the fact that the further prolongation of their present political relationship with America would so tie up their economic system with that of the United States that to disrupt them then would bring about consequences of such character which would make it difficult for the Philippines to undergo the change without ruin to its interests. It is, therefore, preferable that the change should come at this time while such consequences can be minimized in their destructive effects and while the people have the ability to stand the shock. It is very important for the continued prosperity of the Philippines that development be undertaken under conditions which insure stability. Granted the necessity of a final and definite declaration regarding the future status of the Philippine Islands, it is important to deter INDEPENDENCE FORE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 19 mine what that status should be. This question was formally and authoritatively defined by the Congress in the preamble of the Jones Act. That document states that " it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can 'be established therein." This declared policy is in accord with authoritative pronouncements of American Presidents and other officials who could assume the right to speak on behalf of the American people. President McKinley, than whom no other could better express the designs of the United States in the Philippines, warned the people at the inception of American occupation: The Philippines are ours not to exploit but to develop, to civilize, to educate, to train in the science of self-government. In his instructions to the first Philippine Commissioner, Mr. McKinley expressed the hope that the commissioners would be received as bearers ofthe richest blessings of a liberating rather than a conquering nation. These statements were received by the Filipinos as assurances of independence. Their feeling was strengthened by the words of the president of the first Philippine Commission, Dr. Jacob G. Schurman. Expounding the American policy, he said: Ever increasing liberty and self-government * * * and it is the nature of such continuously expanding liberty to issue in independence. In 1904, Mr. Taft, while Secretary of War, declared: When they (the Filipino people) have learned the principles of successful popular self-government from a gradually enlarged experience therein we can discuss the question whether independence is what they desire and grant it * * * In 1908, President Roosevelt in a message to Congress said: I trust that within a generation the time will arrive when the Filipinos can decide for themselves whether it is well for them to become independent. And in 1913, President Wilson in a message to the Filipino people said: Every step we take will be taken with a view to the ultimate independence of the islands and as a preparation for that independence. It is thus to be seen that independence is and has always been the goal and objective of America's Philippine policy. The Jones Act merely gave legal and constitutional sanction to that policy. But there are some who, through legal disquisitions of doubtful sincereity or through subterfuge, attempt to deny the declaration in the Jones Act as an expression of purpose and policy in relation to the Philippines, the authority and finality that it denotes. it is alleged that because the declaration was inserted in the preamble and not 'in the body of the act itself it lacks the authority of a legal enactment. This argument is groundless and capricious. Whetner a part of the law or not, the declaration constitutes a definition of national policy made formally by the only authority possessed of the power to make such declaration. The debate wlich took place in both Houses of Congress shows how seriously the question was considered. Action was taken thereon with deliberation and with 20 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS full knowledge of its purport and significance. The very wording of the title of the act indicates that such declaration of policy was one of the objects and the most important one of the law. But it is contended that even admitting such declaration as an authoritative pronouncement of policy, the same can have no binding force, for Congress can restate it, amend it, or repeal it altogether. As a purely legal proposition such a claim must be conceded. Congress has that power. But while that declaration is allowed to remain in the statute books it constitutes the settled and definite policy of the United States toward the Philippines. So long must it be the guide and inspiration in the administration of the affairs of the islands. Granting that the power exists, has anything occurred to induce America to swerve from the traditional course of freedom and democracy which from the very beginning she has pursued in the Philippines? What is there involving the fate or safety of this Nation or the peace of the world, which can force America to break her pledge? On the contrary, all the events which have transpired since that declaration was made justify the approved policy and compel its maintenance. This declaration of purpose, however, partakes of a character more definite and final than that of a mere 'legal enactment. It implies both a definition of policy and a promise of independence to the Filipinos. They have accepted that promise and are relying upon it in their efforts to achieve their freedom. Quoting the words of the author of the act, the late Congressman Jones, it is " the everlasting covenant of a great and generous people speaking through their accredited representatives that they (the Filipinos) shall in due time enjoy the incomparable blessings of liberty and freedom." President Roosevelt expressed this idea more strongly when he said: Personally I think it is a fine and high thing for a nation to have done such a deed with such a purpose. But we can not taint it with bad faith. If we act so that the natives understand us to have made a definite promise, then we should live up to that promise. Fully aware of the real and true meaning of the declaration of purpose contained in the Jones Act, and having received detailed information regarding conditions obtaining in the Philippine Islands, President Wilson in his message of December 2, 1920, formally and officially reported to the Congress that the only condition required of the Philippines as a condition precedent to the recognition of its independence-a stable government —had been fulfilled. In urging that independence be granted to the Philippines he said: Allow me to call your attention to the fact that the people of the Philippine Islands have succeeded in maintaining a stable government since the last action of the Congress in their behalf, and have thus fulfilled the condition set by the Congress as precedent to a consideration of granting independence to the islands. I respectfully submit that this condition precedent having been fulfilled, it is now our liberty and duty to keep our promise to the people of these islands by granting them the independence which they so honorably covet. This official certification and recommendation awaits the action of Congress. The stability of the government of the Philippine Islands, attested to by the President of the United States, still exists. If any changes have occurred, the changes have been in the direction of greater stability and security. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 21 What constitutes a stable government is a clear and well-defined conception in international law. It is not susceptible of varied or capricious descriptions. It must be admitted that the phrase " stable government " was used in the Jones Act in its recognized and accepted meaning. This meaning was adopted by President McKinley when, in addressing the Cuban people, he defined a " stable government " as one " capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations, insuring peace and tranquility and the security of its citizens as well as our own." To these requirements Secretary Root in his instructions to the Cuban people added the following condition: It must rest upon the peaceful suffrage of the people and must contain constitutional limitations to protect the people from the arbitrary action of the government. The present government of the Philippine Islands stands the test of these requirements. First. The government is democratic in form and structure. It is complete and sufficient for all governmental purposes. It is molded after the Federal Government of the United States, except as to the manner of selecting the chief executive. It rests upon the peaceful suffrage of the people. The interest taken in elections in the Philippines is remarkable. Almost every citizen with the qualification to vote registers, and I would say that 95 per cent of the voters that register actually vote. Senator VANDENBERG. What percentage of citizens are voters? Mr. RoxAS. About 10 per cent of the people are voters. The CHAIRMAN. You mean of the total population? Mr. RoxAS. Of all the population. More than 1,000,000 voted in the last election, Mr. Chairman, and we only permit a man to vote if he possesses certain qualifications. Women do not vote in the Philippine Islands. We can assume that if women were granted the right to vote the number of voters would be doubled. Of the 20,100 employees in the civil service, 19,606 are Filipinos, and only 494 Americans, and practically all of these are teachers in the public schools. The powers of government are distributed among three independent departments: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each department, though having separate and distinct functions, is coordinate and coequal with the others. The members of the legislature are elected by the people. Speaking about this body the Wood-Forbes report says: We find the legislative chambers are conducted with dignity and decorum and are composed of representative men. Governor General Stimson in his report for 1928, after reviewing the work accomplished by the legislature in the session of that year commended this body saying: " The record of legislation produced was highly creditable." Second. The organic act of the Philippines contains limitations to protect the people from the arbitrary action of the government. As the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands said: The Philippine bill of rights approved and extended (to the Philippine Islands) the powers of a republican form of government modeled after that of the United States. 22 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Should the Filipino people be authorized to form and adopt a constitution for a free and independent government similar provisions would be included in that instrument. Third. Public order in the Philippines has been maintained without the least difficulty since the establishment of civil government. The constabulary constitutes the insular police force. It is presently composed of 23 American and 375 Filipino officers and 6,331 enlisted men. The force has proved at all times to be sufficient to maintain order and protect property throughout the whole country. True, a detachment of the regular American army is stationed in the Philippines, but this force is not needed to maintain order there and has never been used for such purpose. In fact, during the World War this detachment was temporarily withdrawn from the Philippines. The report of the Wood-Forbes mission has the following to say on this subject: They (the Filipinos) are naturally an orderly, law-abiding people * **. The constabulary has proved itself to be dependable and thoroughly efficient. Senator HARRIS. You stated just a moment ago that during the war all of the United States soldiers were withdrawn. Not only that, but you organized several regiments. Mr. RoxAs. We organized a regiment of 25,000 Filipinos and offered it to the President of the United States for actual service. We also appropriated funds, poor as we were, for the construction of a submarine for the American Navy. Our loyalty and gratefulness can not be doubted. To continue: Fourth. Prompt and impartial justice is administered by the Philippine courts to rich and poor alike. The courts command the confidence of the people. The judges, both of the inferior courts and the supreme court, are competent and have given evidence of their fairness and integrity. A wide-awake public opinion and an evervigilant bar maintain that healthy interest in the courts which is the best guarantee of a sound and impartial judiciary. The supreme court is composed of nine members appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The chief justice is a Filipino. Three other members are Filipinos and the rest Americans. For the courts of general original jurisdiction there are 28 district judges and 25 auxiliary judges. Each district judge is assigned to a permanent court of first instance. In every municipality or municipal district there is a justice of the peace, who must pass an examination in order to qualify for appointment. There are at present 865 justices of the peace in the islands. The old Spanish civil, commercial, and penal codes are still the basis of Philippine substantive law. They conform to western legal ideas and are easily intelligible to foreigners. The procedural law, both in criminal and civil cases, is American. It assures to litigants speedy justice and protects them fully in their constitutional rights. In this connection, and as a further assurance of the stability of the Philippine government, it may be proper to mention here other important facts bearing on the subject. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 23 HOMOGENEITY OF THE PHILIPPINE PEOPLE In 1914 Chief Justice Taft, testifying before this committee, said: There is a racial solidarity among them (the Filipinos) undoubtedly. They are homogeneous. I can not tell the difference between an Ilocano and a Tagalog or a Visayan-to me all Filipinos are alike. Former Governor Forbes, in his recent book on the Philippines, makes a similar statement. He says: Racially the Filipino is a Malay and throughout the islands the bulk of the population is sufficiently similar in type to indicate no great difference in origins. (Vol. 1, p. 14.) The diversity and the number of our dialects has been frequently cited by those who deny our unity, but this diversity has been grossly misrepresented. For upon closer analysis it will be seen that there are only three basic dialects, the Tagalog, the Ilocano, and the Visayan, and perhaps three other important dialects, the Pangasianan, the Pampango, and the Bicol, but their differences are not great and it is easy for a Filipino to have a speaking knowledge of two or three of them. A large percentage of the Filipinos speak English which is fast becoming the conmmon language of the country. Ninety per cent of the Filipinos belong to the same Christian religion. These facts, together with a consciousness of a common origin and tradition as well as a common national aspiration, have completely welded the Filipino people into one homogeneous nation. Certainly this is more than can be said of many independent countries of to-day such as Spain, which is peopled by Basques, Catalans, and Castilians; Hungary, which is peopled by Maygars, Germans, Slovaks, and others; Bulgaria, which is peopled by Bulgarians, Turks, Rumanians, Greeks, and Jews; Switzerland, where there are Germans, Swiss, and Italians, not to speak of the United States where over 20 per cent of the inhabitants belong to a different and distinct racial stock. POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTIONS Two and only two political parties exist in the Philippines. While completely united and in accord with regard to the question of independence, clear-cut and well-defined issues on important domestic problems separate them. Elections are conducted quietly and peacefully, although almost every office is hotly contested. The people have learned to respect the decisions of the majority as expressed at the polls. Very few, if any, disturbances of the public order have occurred during elections or as a consequence thereof. Aggrieved parties recur to the courts if dissatisfied with the result, but never take justice in their hands. Speaking of the election of 1919, the Wood-Forbes report says: Interest in the election was widespread, and election day passed without any serious disturbances. There was a general wide acceptance by the minority of the results of the popular vote. FINANCIAL CONDITIONS The Philippine government is in a sound financial condition. It is in a position adequately to provide for all necessary activities. Receipts are well in excess of expenditures, and a comfortable sur 24 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS plus has been built up. The report of former Governor General Stimson for 1928 has the following to say on the subject: There was an increase of almost 27 per cent in the amount collected as income taxes; an increase of nearly 5 per cent in the collection of internal revenue; an increase of over 2,000,000 pesos in the amount of currency in circulation; and the total trade of the islands amounted to over 579,000,000 pesos, an increase of nearly 7 per cent over the previous years. (All of this increase was due to increased imports.) Of this total foreign trade, it is of interest to note that 69 per cent was with the United States, imports from there amounting to over 167,000,000 pesos, an increase of over 17 per cent. About 45 per cent of the total trade of the islands was carried in American vessels. The importation of cotton goods, iron and steel, mineral oils, meat and dairy products, automobiles, wheat, flour, silk, and paper in every instance registered an increase over the previous years. More than 50 per cent of all these articles are imported from the United States, and in the case of iron and steel, mineral oils, automobiles, and wheat flour well over 75 per cent. There was a decrease in the value of sugar, abaca, coconut oil, maguey, and tobacco exported; in fact, a slight decrease in the total exports, but the balance of trade is still in favor of the islands. Complete details of the financial operations of the government as well as an itemized statement of receipts and expenditures appear in the budget for 1930 submitted by the Governor General. Wepresent a copy of this budget for the information of the committee. Senator VANDENBERG. Is there a funded public debt? Mr. RoxAs. Yes. sir. Senator VANDENBERG. What is it? Mr. RoxAS. We have an indebtedness of about 175,000,000 pesos. Senator VAN-DENBERG. Is there any responsibility of the Government of the United States behind that debt? Mr. ROXAS. None at all, except probably a moral one. The report of the secretary of finance of the Philippine Islands for the year 1928 shows that the net bonded indebtedness of the government at the end of the year was 175,237.000 pesos, for which there were accumulated sinking funds amounting to over 43,000,000 pesos. This indebtedness is well below the total debt limit fixed by Congress and is easily within the capacity of the government to pay. Besides, this indebtedness will be reduced during the current year by 12,000.000 pesos, which amount has already been set aside by the legislature for the redemption of bonds which are redeemable at the option of the government during this year. Senator VANDENBERG. Is there any American control over the issuance of bonds? Mr. ROXAS. No, sir; except that all bills providing for the issuance of bonds must be approved by the Governor General, and the sale of bonds is made by the Secretary of War. Senator HARRIS. In that sinking fund most of the deposits are guaranteed by United States bonds, are they not? Mr. ROXAS. Our sinking fund is deposited in several banks in the United States. Senator HARRIS. And those banks are required to have United States bonds or Philippine bonds? Mr. RoxAS. United States bonds. To insure the payment of these bonds we would have no objection that the payment of those bonds be made a first lien on our taxes, as the King bill provides. The CHAIRMAN. You speak of Senator King's bill. You have not made any reference to Senator King's bill so far. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 25 Mr. RoxAs. I will do so in a moment. I first would like to touch on a few other important matters. CURRENCY The Philippines has a sound and stable currency. The circulation is about 130,000,000 pesos. The currency is based on the gold standard. The present reserve, called the gold-standard fund, is greatly in excess of the minimum required by law. The national bank is the only bank of issue. Its circulation is well below the amount of its capital and surplus, and is properly and fully secured. The Bank of the Philippine Islands that had authority to issue notes under the Spanish Government still has notes in circulation, but in conformity with a law passed by the Philippine Legislature, is now gradually redeeming them. The treasury silver certificates are guaranteed with a 100 per cent silver reserve in the treasury of the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. Mr. Speaker, excuse me for interrupting you, but there are certain high lights in this matter. In a subtle sort of way it is said that you are not ready for independence. I am wondering what you have to say on that subject. Mr. RoxAs. You mean politically? Senator HAWES, Politically. For a number of years you have been sending your children to school in this country, and they have been graduating from our schools. You have been going to school, putting it in another way, for 30 years. You have an entirely new generation there since the Spanish-American War. Just answering that propaganda that you are not ready for it, what have you to say upon that point? Mr. RoxAs. I will say that, politically, I mean as far as political education is concerned, every man who has investigated conditions in the Philippines, every governor general of the islands, even Governor Stimson, has admitted that the people possess that capacity. The Filipinos, taken as a people, have shown that they understand the philosophy of democracy and the orderly processes of a republican government. All our local officials are elected. Elections are contested as bitterly as in other countries where popular government has been established. And I tell you in all truthfulness, there are very few cities in the world where governments are conducted more efficiently and honestly than those local governments in the Philippines. Senator HAWES. You do not believe that it would take another 30 years of education before you are ready for independence? Mr. RoxAs. I think if 30 years more were allowed to elapse for the completion of our political education we would learn the vices and defects of democracy, for we have already mastered its virtues. Senator HARRIS. When and what did Secretary Stimson say about your independence? Mr. RoxAs. Secretary Stimson did not discuss that question while he was governor general. He stated, however, that the political progress attained by the Filipinos was out of proportion with the economic progress of their country. Senator VANDENBERG. In how many departments are there still American administrators? 26 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. ROXAS. In only one, the department of public instruction. The secretary of that department is the vice governor of the Philippine Islands. Senator VANDENBERG. What is the American population of the Philippine Islands? Mr. ROXAS. I do not have the latest figures, but I would say about 7,000, including soldiers. The CHAIRMAN. How many of the Provinces to-day have American governors? Mr. RoxAS. Only two Provinces, occupied by Mohammedan Filipinos. Senator PITTMAN. How many Provinces are there? Mr. ROXAS. There are altogether 53 Provinces. Senator VANDENBURG. What is the population of those Provinces that you just mentioned? Mr. RoxAs. The islands of Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan, around which the so-called Moro problem centers, have a combined area of 44,713 square miles, or 39 per cent of the total land area of the Philippines, and a combined population of 1,175,212. Contrary to common belief in America, however, this portion of the archipelago is not wholly inhabited by Mohammedan Filipinos, for of the people living in said regions 536,726 are Christian Filipinos and 205,608 are pagans. The Moros number 423,299, and constitute barely 4 per cent of the total population of the islands. They occupy only 21 per cent of the land area of Mindanao and Sulu, or only 8 per cent of the total land area of the archipelago. The Moros differ from other Filipinos only in their language and religion. Historians and anthropologists concede that they belong to the same racial blended stock, namely, the Malays, who invaded the archipelago probably around the year 1500 B. C., but these Malays of the south became converted to the Mohammedan religion during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries A. D., and this, of course, eventually resulted in the adoption of Mohammedan civilization, customs, and traditions. It is untrue that hatred or animosity divides the Moros from the Christian Filipinos. Assured of freedom: of religious worship, the Moros have accepted the present order and are living within the law, paying taxes, sending their children to the public schools, and in every way are conducting themselves as peaceful and loyal citizens. While naturally proud of their civilization and tradition, they are united with the other Filipinos in a common national consciousness and a common aspiration to achieve the independence of the Philippines. During the administration of Governor Harrison, when every provincial governor of these provinces was a Filipino, no serious disturbance of the public order occurred. Senator VANDENBERG. I understand you to say that those Provinces were governed by native governors and are now governed by American governors. Why was the change made? Mr. RoxAs. Merely as a result of a change of policy. When Governor Harrison was governor general, he thought it wise to allow Filipinos to govern all those Provinces, but a subsequent administration believed it was better to appoint American governors for some of the Provinces. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 27 The CHAIRMAN. That was done by Governor General Wood, was it not? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. You would not say that that reflects any lack of willingness, so far as those particular Provinces are concerned, to go along with the country? Mr. ROXAS. No, sir; on the contrary. Senator HAWES. The disorder there is less than it is in Chicago, Homicides are less there than in Chicago every year. Mr. ROXAS. Disorders and criminality in the Philippines are relatively low. Senator PITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Senator to withdraw that question as reflecting on the Philippine Islands. Mr. RoxAS. Now, I wish to say a few words regarding Senator King's bill. The CHAIRMAN. You mean bill 3108? Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir. We are in accord with the provisions of that bill and earnestly desire its passage. The sentiment for independence in the Philippines is strong and universal. Both political parties are in favor of independence. The Philippine Legislature every year passes a unanimous resolution petitioning the Congress that it be granted at an early date. The desire for independence is inspired not only by the natural feeling to be free, but also because face to face with realities, both political, economic, and social, the Filipino people have reached the conclusion that only in independence can they work out their destiny and establish conditions in their country with any degree of stability. As has been said, independence has always been the goal of American Philippine policy. Its grant would be as much a fulfillment of that policy as the satisfaction of Filipino aspirations. It would be the happy outcome of the joint labors of two peoples undertaken with generosity on the one hand and with abiding confidence and faith on! the other. The grant of independence to the Philippines now is in keeping with the spirit of the times. Under American leadership independence was accorded to many nationalities after the World War. Even now efforts are being made to consolidate such states and to safeguard the welfare and safety of those nations, all in a spirit of service and high-minded and unselfish helpfulness. England, the great mother of nations, is bringing about the complete liberation of Egypt. She is undertaking reforms in Ceylon in the line of autonomy and is preparing to take a transcendental step in India, perhaps in the direction of a dominion status. Even Japan, the youngest of the empire nations, is fast introducing liberal government in Korea. The governor general of that colony, Viscount Saito, has recently been in Japan to recommend self-government for that territory. Philippine independence would also be in consonance with the prevailing spirit of intense nationalism which is dominant in America and all over the world. That spirit is based on sound and just tendencies-a desire for peace, self-sufficiency, freedom from foreign entanglements, and the determination to maintain prevailing standards of civilization as well as racial integrity. 28 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The present movement against the free entry of Philippine products into the United States and against Philippine immigration into this country are nothing but manifestations of that sentiment. The Filipinos understand its significance and importance to the people of this country. Philippine independence would solve the problem involved. The facts and figures which have been submitted prove the capacity of the Filipino people to maintain an independent government. However, that capacity is denied on the ground that they could not resist the aggression of a stronger nation. Clearly the power to do so can not be made the test for the ability to maintain an independent government, for if such standard were to be exacted there would be but few nations in the world which would have the capacity to maintain an independent existence. Considering the new morality that prevails in the world governing dealings among nations, there would seem to be no danger that the independence of the Philippines may be disturbed by unjustified foreign aggression. Moreover, the peoples of the world have created international instrumentalities which are amply sufficient to guarantee the safety of any nation against such unwarranted attacks. A nation like the Philippines, shielded by the Kellogg peace pact and the League of Nations, could live in peace, unmolested by foreign interference. But if there be real concern on this subject, America, desirous of safeguarding the safety and independence of the Philippines, might see her way clear to effect an arrangement with Great Britain, Japan, and France guaranteeing its neutrality and integrity. At all events, the Philippines could apply for membership in the League of Nations. This statement would not be complete without reference to the so-called Japanese menace to the independence of the Philippines which imperialists continually harp upon to the great embarrassment of both the Government of the United States and Japan. The Filipinos, after a thorough consideration of that question, feel that no such fear of Japan need be entertained. Japan is a nation that is showing a real desire for peace and a desire to scrupulously maintain and respect the rights of other nations. Democracy is fast gaining ground in that country; this is the best guarantee against imperialism. Besides, there can be no possible inducements for Japan to conquer the Philippines. Her people manifest no desire to settle in tropical countries. The experience of Japan in Formosa proves this assertion. In the Philippines, although unrestricted Japanese immigration is allowed, there has never been more than 14,000 Japanese at any time. This is because the Japanese do not thrive in a tropical country and prefer to emigrate to countries in the Temperate Zone. But referring to the policy of the Japanese Government itself, Mr. Taft, in 1915, clearly stated that no such danger from Japan regarding the Philippines could exist. Only last December Mr. Charles McVeagh, former United States ambassador to Tokyo, denounced the bugaboo that Japan's rapidly increasing population compels her to seek territorial expansion. He said that, in accordance with the views of Japanese statesmen, the present possessions of the country were sufficient for the needs of the people for a century, perhaps two centuries, to come. And he concluded: " What Japan wants is a period of rest for industrial and commercial development." INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 29 The argument most strongly urged against Philippine independence refers to the ruinous consequences upon important Philippine industries with the cutting off of the Philippines from the American market. It would be futile to deny that sudden disruption of the present trade arrangement with the United States would result in business depression in the islands. The sugar, tobacco, and coconut oil industries would face difficulties for a short time at least. It is improbable that such a situation will be forced on the Philippines. Transfers of sovereignty have always provided for a fixed reasonable period to allow readjustment of conditions. This practice was observed in relation to Spain when the Philippines were ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. It would not be unreasonable to expect that the same procedure would be followed upon declaration of independence. Granted a period after independence during which trade relations with the United States are to continue as they are, the Philippines would have an opportunity to readjust her industries, enabling them to undergo the change without injury. Industries now enjoying preferential treatment in the American market would be placed on a competitive basis; production of those articles which can not be sold at a profit in the open market would be gradually contracted, while those industries which could be profitably operated without need of tariff differentials would be stimulated. After effecting this readjustment, Philippine production, with certainty in status and stability as to economic conditions, would increase well over its present limits. This period of readjustment could be granted without injuring appreciably the interests of domestic producers. However, the Filipinos feel that they are not at liberty to request its concession. Whether it should be approved or not is a matter which should address itself to the sense of justice of the American people and to their earnest desire nobly to complete their task in the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. DO you think that it would be dangerous not to have that sort of a period? Mr. RoxAs. If we were granted that period we would have no serious problems at the inception of a free Philippine state. Senator VANDENBERG. That would be autonomy afterwards instead of before? Mr. RoxAs. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. Would vou want to say that it would be safe for you to go ahead without that period? Mr. RoxAs. It would not be comfortable, but if necessary we are willing to face the consequences. Senator VANDENBERG. In fact, it is rather dangerous; is it not? Mr. ROxAs. Well, it will be embarrassing, but we have measured the extent of that embarrassment and we are ready to face it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to make any remarks in connection with Senate Joint Resolution 113? Mr. RoxAs. With pleasure, Senator. First, I want to express my personal gratification that a resolution of this kind has been presented by the chairman of the committee. This is the first instance that a chairman of the Senate committee has proposed a measure 92109 —30-PT 1 3 30 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS which contemplated a final solution of the Philippine problem. This indicates that a consensus of opinion exists as to the necessity of defining the status of the Philippines. The futility of the Philippine situation should be apparent to every person aware of the conditions obtaining in that country. A continuance of the present uncertainty can not but result in business depression, economic embarrassments, and stagnation of progress and development. Faced by such a situation the Filipinos appeal to the Government and people of the United States for action on the Philippine question without the least possible delay. President Wilson urged such action in 1920. In 19)24 a Republican administration took a similar stand when it advocated the approval of the so-called Johnson bill providing for independence for the Philippine Islands on a fixed and definite date. To-day there is a widespread demand for a definite solution of that problem among important elements in this country. The Filipinos are also desirous that such action be taken. Even the Americans in the Philippines feel that a definition of the permanent status of the islands should be made now. Our instructions from the legislature enjoin us to urge the Congress to grant the Philippines independence. The bill of Senator King proposes to grant independence at an early date. We are in favor of that. If the Senate believes or Congress thinks that that bill should not be passed and should prefer to approve Joint Resolution 113, we would accept that as an evidence of a desire on the part of Congress to arrive at a definite solution of this problem. Congress shall decide that question. As for us, I repeat, we favor fully and completely the bill presented by Senator King. The CHAIRrAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Senator KING. Mr. Speaker, I was out of the room for a moment. Did you mention the educational question, the number of schools, and so forth? Mr. RoxAs. I would ask that the committee give my colleague, Mr. Osias, a chance to speak on that subject. He was president of a university before he was elected Resident Commissioner, and he is better informed in that subject than I am. I would say, however, that we have a complete system of public schools in the Philippines and English is fast becoming the official language in the islands. I do not believe that there is any country that appropriates a greater proportion of its revenues for education than the Philippines. Mr. Chairman. I would request the privilege of inserting in the record as part of my testimony this memorandum discussing, first, what is the political status of the Philippine Islands under the Constitution of the United States, and, second, the legal power of the Congress to grant the Philippines independence. Senator VANDENBERG. DO you have any doubts on that subject? Mr. RoXAS. I have none; but on the floor of the Senate doubts were expressed as to such power. The CHAIRMAN. That will also be printed. (The memorandum above referred to is as follows:) INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 31 PRESENT POLITICAL STATUS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Soon after the acquisition by the United States of the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico many questions arose which required the determination of the political status of such territories within the Union. As Chief Justice Taft said, "Few questions have been the subject of such discussion and dispute in our country as the status of our territories acquired from Spain in 1898." (Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298.) While at first the question gave rise to doubts and perplexities, a long line of authoritative pronouncements has finally settled this legal and constitutional question. In the case of Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S. 244), it was held that such territories are appurtenant and belonging to the United States but are not a part of the United States within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. When these territories were ceded to the United States under the treaty of Paris they ceased to be foreign. However, they did not become truly domestic. Neither did they constitute a sovereign power, but "came under the complete and absolute sovereignty and domain of the United States." But while thus recognized as a territory of the United States they did not become incorporated to the United States. Mr. Justice White, in the case of Rasmussen v. U. S. (197 U. S. 516), said " Whilst by the treaty with Spain the Philippine Islands had come under the sovereignty of the United States and were subject to its control as a, dependency or possession, those islands had not been incorporated into the United States as a part thereof, and therefore Congress, in legislating concerning them, was subject only to the provisions of the Constitution applicable to territory occupying that relation." Ceded territory can only be incorporated and made a part of the United States by congressional action. The treaty of Paris merely ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States and did not attempt to incorporate them or their inhabitants into the United States. Neither has Congress taken such action. Indeed, the Congress of the United States has expressly declared that the acts passed by the Congress are not applicable to the Philippine Islands unless expressly made so. Congress possesses plenary and supreme power to legislate over the Philippine Islands under the authority granted by the Constitution to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting their territory or other property belonging to the United States." This power of Congress is broad and is not limited by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. The only limitations that have been recognized are those which spring from those safeguards which guarantee moral and natural rights constituting the unwritten law within and outside the Constitution. But while not an incorporated territory, and therefore not a part of the United States in the domestic sense, the Philippines is not a foreign country in an international sense. In this respect the Philippines constitutes an integral part of the American Union. As a consequence of this anomalous political status of the Philippine Islands the status of the inhabitants of that country has also given rise to serious controversy. They are not aliens. They owe allegiance to the United States but are not citizens of the United States. The doctrine of collective naturalization which has been applied to the inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States previously to the Spanish-American War by treaty, purchase, or political incorporation could not apply to the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. Indeed, article 9 of the treaty of Paris left their civil rights and political status to be determined by Congress. " This fact," said the United States Supreme Court, " is an implied denial of the rights of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by Federal action shall signify its assent thereto." (Downes v. Bidwell (1901), 182 U. S. 244 at 280.) The Filipinos are citizens of the Philippine Islands, owing allegiance to the United States, but are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of the American Constitution. However, they are American nationals entitled to the protection of the United States in their dealings with foreign countries. Mr. Justice Malcolm, of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, summarizing his discussion of this question, says: "From a negative standpoint, the Philippines occupy a relation to the United States different from that of other non-contiguous territory; not a 32 INDEPENDE.NCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS foreign country; not sovereign or quasi-sovereign; not a state or an incorporated territory; not a part of the United States in a domestic sense; not under the Constitution except as it operates on the President and Congress; and not a colony. The Filipinos are neither aliens, subjects, nor citizens of the United States * * *. As a keen observer has said, the Government of the Philippine Islands is a government foreign to the United States for domestic purposes, but domestic for foreign purposes-a position midway between that of being territory absolutely, and domestic territory absolutely." In the case of the United States v. Bull decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands (15 Phil. 7), Mr. Justice Elliott, following the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States, thus defines the status of the Philippines: "This government of the Philippine Islands is not a state or a territory, although its form and organization somewhat resemble that of both. It stands outside of the constitutional relation which unites the States and Territories into the Union. The authority for its creation and maintenance is derived from the Constitution of the United States, which however, operates on the President and Congress, and not directly on the Philippine Government. It is the creation of the United States, acting through the President and Congress, both deriving power from the same source, but from different parts thereof. For its powers and the limitntions thereon the government of the Philippines looked to the orders of the President before Congress acted, and the acts of Congress after it assumed control. Its organic laws are derived from the formally and legally expressed will of the President and Congress, instead of the popular sovereign constituency which lies back of American constitutions. The power to legislate upon any subject relating to the Philippines is primarily in Congress, and when it exercises such power its act is, from the viewpoint of the Philippines, the legal equivalent of an amendment of a constitution in the United States. " Within the limits of its authority the government of the! Philippines is a complete governmental organism, with executive, legislative, and judicial departments exercising the functions commonly assigned to such departments." THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO DECLARE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS FREE AND INDEPENDENT Having determined the status of the Philippine Islands, it is important to consider whether Congress has the constitutional power to grant them independence. The discussion of this question has been made imperative not only because from time to time doubts have been expressed as to the power of Congress to do so but also because on the floor of Congress itself some Members have seriously questioned that power. CONGRESS HAS POWER EXPRESSLY GRANTED The Philippine Islands were acquired by the United States from Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. In that treaty it was expressly stipulated that "' the civil rights and the political status of the native inhab tants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress." But there is no express provision in the Constitution wihch authorizes the United States to withdraw its sovereignty from a territory belonging to the United States. The only reference to " territories " in the Constitution is contained in section 3, paragraph 2, article 4: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." It is insistently argued that this provision does not authorize Congress to alienate territory by renouncing its sovereignty therein but merely confers that power over the public lands within the jurisdiction of the United States. This narrow interpretation of the constitutional provision is justified neither by its clear and express terms nor by its necessary implications. If the provision was intended to be limited to lands of the public domain, it seems difficult to understand why that phrase was not employed instead of the word "territory." Moreover, this clause of the Constitution is the fountain source of the power recognized to reside in the Congress to govern and legislate for Terri INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 33 tories, both incorporated and unincorporated, belonging to the United States. If such interpretation can be given to this provision, it is obvious that the word "territory" herein used signifies political subdivisions rather than merely portions of the public domain within any such territorial units. POWER MAY BE IMPLIED FROM POWER TO DECLARE WAR AND MAKE TREATIES But to determine this question it is not necessary to resort to express and tacit provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is a live instrument that has grown with the country, adjusting itself to the exigencies of progress, power, and importance which both in domestic and foreign affairs have been achieved in the course of time. Thus, it is conceded that the powers of Congress under the Constitution extend to those powers expressly delegated by the Constitution those powers implied from expressly delegated powers, and those powers implied as a resultant from a group of expressed or implied powers. The Constitution of the United States contains no provisions authorizing the annexation of territory. But the Constitution grants to Congress the power to declare war. It also grants to the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the power to make treaties. If the Federal Government is authorized to make war and make treaties to adjust the relations of the Government with foreign countries, it is clear that as a resultant power the Federal Government has the implied power to annex territory as a consequence of war or by virtue of the provisions of such treaties. If the power to acquire or annex territory as a resultant from the express powers granted in the Constitution is admitted, there can be no plausible reason to confine this power to the acquisition and not to extend it. to the alienation or cession or renunciation of sovereignty over territory as well. Indeed, Willoughby admits it as a matter of course when he says, "Should the alienation be by way of granting independence to a particular territory, as, for example, Porto Rico or the Philippine Islands, this could be done by joint resolution. (Willoughby, Constitutional Laws of the United States, p. 513.) POWER IS ESSENTIAL ATTRIR3UTE OF SOVEREIGNTY A denial of such right will deprive the Government of the United States of those powers which are essential attributes of sovereignty recognized to reside in the government of all independent countries, if they are to deal effectively with one another in the discharge of their international rights and, obligations. In the Chinese exclusion cases (130 U. S. 581) the Supreme Court said: "While under the Constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens are one Nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security through its entire territory." If the United States is possessed of all the attributes of sovereignty, it must be possessed of all those powers which other independent sovereignties exercise. If other independent nations have granted independence to portions of their territories, can it be maintained that the Government of the United States is devoid of that authority? Professor Willoughby, in his monumental work on the Constitutional Law of the United States, says: " In fact it will be seen that the acquiring of foreign territory has been treated as a result incidental to, rather than as a means for, the carrying on of a war and the conducting of foreign relations. This leads to the consideration of the doctrine which, constitutionally speaking, appeals to the author as the soundest mode of sustaining the power of the United States to acquire territory as well as the one which, in application, affords the freest scope of its exercise. According to this doctrine the right to acquire territory is to be searched for not as implied in the power to admit new States into the Union or as dependent specifically on the war and treaty-making powers, but as derived from the fact that in all relations, governed by principles of international law, the General Government may be properly construed to have, in the absence of express prohibitions, all powers possessed generally by States of the world." 34 INDEPEINDP ENCEC FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS In this connection, it is interesting to note the long and important discussion which took place during the early years of the Republic regarding the power of the Federal Government to cede territory of a State without the latter's consent. Both Jefferson and Washington held that no such power existed. Hamilton, on the other hand, admitted that there could be instances when this power might be necessary. After a series of conflicting political and judicial opinions both Marshall and Story arrived at the conclusion that such power existed if the United States was to be considered as one and a single sovereign political Union with the ability to act as such in its dealings with foreign countries. They intimated that it could well be possible that such cession was indispensable for the attainment of peace or the safety of the Nation, and even in order to obtain a similar cession from a foreign power which ceded territory was more important for the real and true interests of the whole Republic than the territory sought to be alienated. As Chancellor Kent aptly says, "' the better opinion would seem to be that such a power of cession must reside in the treaty-making power under the Constitution, although a sound discretion would prohibit its exercise without the consent of the interested State." (Kent, Commentaries, sec. 166.) Professor Willoughby maintains the existence of such power. Those who are inclined to deny it reluctantly admit that many emergencies might occur compelling the recognition of such power. But if the power to alienate territory belonging to a State without the consent of the State is disputed, the power to alienate such territory with the consent of the State or of a territory not belonging to any State has never been seriously questioned. CUBAN INDEPENDENCE A PRECEDENT The authority of Congress to grant independence to the Philippines finds a precedent in the case of Cuba. In the case of Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S. 244), Mr. Justice White, speaking for the Court, said: " True, from the exigency of a calamitous war or the necessity of making a settlement of boundaries it may be that citizens of the United States may be expatriated by the action of the treaty-making power, impliedly or expressly ratified by Congress. But the arising of these particular conditions can not justify the general proposition that territory which is an integral part of the United States may, as a mere act of sale, be disposed of." After deciding that Porto Rico and hence the Philippines had not been incorporated into the United States, he draws a parallel with the political status of Cuba and uses these significant words: 'It can not, it is submitted, be questioned that, under this provision of the treaty as long as the occupation of the United States lasts, the benign sovereignty of the United States extends over and dominates the Isle of Cuba. Likewise, it is not, it seems to me, questionable that the period when that sovereignty is to cease is to be determined by the legislative department of the Government of the United States in the exercise of the great duties imposed upon it, and with a sense of responsibility which it owes to the people of the United States * * *." This statement admits that the sovereignty of the United States had been established over Cuba. If this is true, then the recognition of the independence of Cuba must be regarded as a precedent of decisive authority. The fact that upon the declaration of war against Spain the United States disclaimed " any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty " over said island does not change the legal aspect of the act. When Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba sovereignty was transferred to the United States. Only upon this assumption can the Platt amendment with the restrictions upon Cuban sovereignty and independence imposed by the United States be constitutionally upheld. For if the United States did not possess sovereignty over Cuba it could not by that amendment retain portions of it. POWER TO GRA-NT INDEPENDENCE IMPLIED FROM POWER TO GOVERN It could also be plausibly contended that the power to grant independence to the Philippines arises by necessary implication from the power to govern Territories. If such power exists, then the authority exists to provide self-government for such Territory. The difference is only a matter of degree. In fact, Mr. Justice Brown, in the Insular cases, expressly intimated that the Philippines and Porto Rico " might be permitted to form independent governments." INDEPENDENCE FOR, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 35 POWER IMPLIED FROM POWER TO PASS LEGISLATION TO FULFILL TREATY OBLIGATIONS This question can yet be viewed from another angle. Cases have occurred when laws of the United States have been declared constitutional because based on a treaty. (U. S. v. Selkirk, 258 Fed. 375; Missouri v. Holland, 252, 416.) These authorities justify the implication that Congress may have the power to act if it is so granted by a treaty which, without it, would be absent under the Constitution. Now, the treaty with Spain contains the provision already cited that the civil rights and the political status of the native inhabitants of the territory ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress. This stipulation, if the authority did not exist, would be sufficient to grant Congress the power to declare the Philippines independent. This conclusion is strengthened by the words of the Hon. William R. Day, president of the American Peace Commission, later a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, explaining this reservation in the treaty. He said: "It was thus undertaken to give Congress, as far as the same could be constitutionally done, a free hand in dealing with these new territories and their inhabitants." It is also significant that in the discussion which took place in the Senate of the United States on the question of ratification of the treaty of Paris, Senator Lodge and other advocates of ratification urged favorable action on the ground that the treaty did not commit the United States to any policy, but placed the future of the Philippine Islands exclusively in the hands of Congress. They asserted that insistence on the various propositions seeking to force Congress either to insert a stipulation in the treaty which would bind the United States to recognize the independence of the Philippines, or by a resolution to express that purpose as a condition to a ratification, was nothing but giving bonds to Spain and an expression of distrust in the judgment of the Congress of the United States and its ability to deal justly and righteously with the Filipinos. As expressed by Mr. Bryan, "the ratification of the treaty, instead of committing the United States to a colonial policy, really clears the way for the recognition of the Philippine Republic." Quoting Lincoln, he asked: "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?" And he added: "Could the independence of the Philippines be secured more easily than through laws passed by Congress and voicing the sentiments of the American people? " These statements reveal the fact that when the treaty of Paris was ratified it was the belief, at least of those who voted for ratification, that the Congress had the full and absolute power, as the treaty stipulated, to determine the political status of the native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A reading of the record of the Senate debates will show that without this understanding the treaty would have failed of ratification. CONCLUSION S The considerations and authorities cited conclusively show that Congress has the full power under the Constitution to dispose, of the Philippines. The office of the Attorney General of the United States in 1924 reached the same conclusion. In a letter addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives the Attorney General, in response to a request for an opinion on this question, stated: "The Philippine Islands have never been incorporated into the United States as an integral part thereof. They are held as an insular possession, appurtenant to the United States but not incorporated into the United States. (See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 341-342; Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138.) The Constitution of the United States has never been extended to the Philippine Islands. It has been so extended to the Territory of Alaska by congressional enactment. (Rasmussen v. U. S., 197 U. S. 516.) "Under the Constitution of the United States, Congress has complete control over Territories. It likewise has such control over insular possessions, and may do with such possessions as it may see fit. If Congress deems it expedient to grant complete independence to the people of the Philippine Islands or a limited independence, it may, in my judgment, do so. On the other hand, if Congress should deem it expedient to incorporate the Philippine Islands as a Territory of the United States, extending to it the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, I think undoubtedly the power exists in Congress to do so." 36 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Justice George A. Malcolm of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, propounds the following questions to maintain the same theory: " If the United States can acquire or cede territory without express constitutional authority, why can not the same sovereign power, which perm ts of such action, likewise permit unincorporated territory to be made independent? What difference is there between cession to another foreign power and cession to another people temporarily under American control? If the Un ted States could by treaty pass on the boon of freedom to Cuba, why can she not, a few years later, under the power reserved by the same treaty to Congress, pursuant to this power, hand over a similar right to the Philippines? If the freeing of the Philippines is deemed wise from the standpoint of national necessity or advantage, or for reasons which take into consideration benefits to the Filipino people, what individual citizen can be heard to complain? " If other sovereign powers can recognize former portions of their territory as independent, because forced to do so, why can not the United States as a power of equal rank, recognize the Philippines as a republic, because she wishes to do so? And if Congress or its agent, the President, shall recognize the Philippines to be a sovereignty, how long on such a political question would a litigant have standing in a court? Plain answers to these interrogatories, if the premises be conceded, must by a logic inexorable and final lead to an affirmative conclusion. And the premises it is believed can not be undermined." It is thus to be seen that the power of Congress to alienate territory or to grant independence to the Philippine Islands may be maintained on several grounds: First, because it is granted to Congress expressly in the Constitution; second, because the power may be implied from powers expressly granted; third, because the power resides in Congress by virtue of its resultant powers; fourth, because it is inherent to sovereignty; fifth, because the power exists in the President and in the Senate of the United States by virtue of the treaty-making power; and, sixth, because it resides in Congress as a power implied from the power to pass necessary legislation to carry out treaty commitments. Mr. ROXAS. I have also here for the files of the committee a copy of the budget in the Philippine Islands, which more than anything else will show the financial situation of the government respecting bonded indebtedness, currency, and other facts which bear on the international situation. Senator KING. The budget which you just presented is a rather voluminous document. Mr. RoxAs. It is for the files of the committee. Senator. Senator KING. Would it be convenient for the members of your organization to make an abridgement of it? Mr. ROXAS. We will have that in our brief, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. There will be printed in the record at this point a letter from Mr. Isauro Gabaldon, special delegate to the United States of the Philippine Independent League. Mr. Gabaldon is prevented from appearing on account of illness. (The letter above referred to, together with inclosures, is as follows:) JANUARY 15, 1930. CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you be kind enough to print in the record of the hearings of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs to be held today, the memorandum relative to the Philippine Independence League submitted by the undersigned to the Hon. Pedro Guevara and the Hon. Camilo Osias, Resident Commissioners to the United States. I am deeply regretful that on account of my present illness I am unable to appear before your committee and express not only my personal views on the Philippine question but also those of the Philippine Independence League, which I have the honor to represent in the United States at present. I hope, however, that I may be able to file with the secretary of your committee for the 38 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS less of party affiliation or religious creed, to fight for the immediate restoration of the Philippine Republic in any form." The Filipino people believe that the time has now come to grant Philippine independence. Both as the delegate of the Philippine Independence League and as a Filipino citizen, I desire to express the hope that the present Congress will grant us absolute and complete independence. We will assume the same risks that all other independent nations assume. The record of the United States with regard to the subject of the freedom of mankind is such that I do not see how this Nation can consistently refuse our plea. It was the United States that, in its immortal Declaration of Independence, proclaimed the principle that governments derive their " just powers from the consent of the governed." It was the United States, too, that wrote and championed before the world the principle of self-determination during the late war. And at the time that Ireland sought its complete independence both Houses of the American Congress by an overwhelming majority adopted resolutions expressing the sympathy of the United States with the aspirations of the Irish people for a republic. At one time no less than 30 resolutions to that end were pending before committees of the American Congress. In the light of this magnificent record, can America now turn her back on us, her own wards, and refuse us that boon which she fought England to obtain for herself, for which she sent men by the millions to the battle fields during the World War, and which in the resolutions to which I have referred she practically asked Great Britain to concede to Ireland? As the great Senator Borah recently stated on the floor of the Senate, American capital is constantly going into the Philippines, and if the Filipino people do not obtain their independence " within a very short time," they will never secure it. And the Senator's prediction appears only too true. I shall not attempt to describe what the permanent denial of independence would spell in the way of discouragement and disappointment to the Filipino people. In my opinion it is the honor of the United States, and not the capacity of the Filipino people that is really on trial before this committee. So far as the Filipino people are concerned, they, in the words of President Wilson, long ago " fulfilled the condition set by the Congress as precedent " to the grant of their independence. If we are denied independence it will be a great catastrophe for the United States, whatever it may mean to the Filipinos, for it would mean an everlasting blemish on the escutcheon of this the greatest and most altruistic nation on the face of the earth to-day. There is but one other point I desire to cover, and that is: Would independence be good for us? Well, I can cite to you the success of the independent country of Siam, which occupies a rich and fertile land only 1,300 miles from us, and is peopled by 10,000,000 Malayans, the same race of people that inhabits the Philippines. Now if our brother-Malayans of Siam can live happily and be increasingly prosperous without the sovereignty of an alien people, without tariff-free access to American markets, and also, if you please, without the slightest molestation from Japan or any other INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 37 use of yourself and membership within the next few days a statement of my own. Thanking you in advance, and hoping that a final solution of the Philippine independence problem may be reached, I am Yours very truly, ISAURO GABALDON, Special Delegate to the United States of the Philippine Independence League. MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY ISAURO GABALDON TO THE HON. PEDRO GUEVARA AND HON. CAMILO OSIAS RELATIVE TO THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE LEAGUE Copy of cable received by Isauro Gabaldon at Washington, D. C., with instructions that copy of same be submitted for information of Philippine Resident Commissioners: "With Aguinaldo presiding and several thousand prominent citizens attending, a mass meeting held December 24 unanimously request you to present to the American Congress the following memorial: "'For three decades the Filipino people have confidently awaited the redemption of America's pledge of freedom. That assurance is expressed in the utterances of the successive Presidents of the United States and is solemnly embodied in the preamble of the Philippine autonomy act, passed by an overwhelming majority of both Houses of the American Congress in 1916. "'The prolonged delay in the fulfillment of this American covenant is a denial of justice and of the God-given right of the Filipino people to determine their own mode of life. "' The Filipino people, in aspiring for an independent life, are moved by the firm conviction, which is strengthened by the history of mankind, that through freedom alone can their genius as a nation reach its supreme unfolding and their economic and political development be fully realized. "' For their national freedom they are willing to pay the price of greater responsibilities and more onerous burdens which other independent nations have had to pay. "' The alleged menace of foreign invasion does not lessen our longing for nationhood, because such danger is remote, and because, even if it were imminent or probable, we should be unworthy of freedom if we renounced it because of fear of aggression by a strong power. "' Therefore this mass meeting earnestly petitions the American people and Government to fulfill their solemn promise of independence to the Filipino people without further delay.' "Provinces have sent telegrams supporting above memorial. "AGoNCILLO, Presideat." In a letter dated at Manila, November 29, 1929, and signed by Felipe Agoncillo, as president, and Vicente Sotto, as secretary, the following information was given relative to the league. " The purpose of the Philippine Independence League is to unite all Filipinos, regardless of party affiliations or religious creed, to fight for the immediate restoration of the Philippine Republic in any form." Officers: Honorary presidents, Emilio Aguinaldo and Ramon Avancena; president, Felipe Agoncillo; vice president and special delegate to Washington, Isauro Gabaldon; secretary, Vicente Sotto; members executive committee, officers above mentioned and Isabelo de los Reyes. Juan Alegre, Pedro Rodriguez, Eusebio Orense, Leopoldo R. Aguinaldo, Tomas Mascardo, Jose Varela Calderon, and Jorge Bocobo. STATEMENT (IN WRITING) OF ISAURO GABALDON, DELEGATE OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE LEAGUE, MANILA, P. I. Mr. GABALDON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire, as the delegate of the Philippine Independence League, to present for the record of your hearings a memorial adopted at a mass meeting in Manila on December 24 last. This is not a political organization, its stated purpose being " to unite all Filipinos, regard INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 39 power on earth, why can not the Philippines look forward to equal contentment, peace, and satisfaction under independence? To the south of you, Mexico has its independence, and whatever the outside world may think, the whole Mexican people love independence and would give up their lives to the last man, woman and child rather than have their government, of Mexicans, by Mexicans, and for Mexicans, submit to the slightest outside domination. Still further south, Chile enjoys independence, as do also Brazil, Argentine, Venezuela, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Salvador, Guatemala, and other South and Central American peoples. Think you that even the smallest or most insignificant of these Republics would prefer the tutelage of any foreign nation on earth to their present complete government of themselves by themselves? Can anyone name a single independent nation in the world that would be willing to exchange its status for one in the slightest way similar to that to-day occupied by the Philippines.? Retentionists are fond of asserting that independence would annihilate Philippine commerce. But allow me to state that a few years back I went to the trouble to compare the growth of the foreign trade of the Philippines with that of the various South American republics, and I found that between the years 1921 and 1924 the percentage of increase of the foreign trade of each of the eight South American Republics last named was greater without tariff-free access to American markets than that of the Philippines with it. Here are the relative and respective percentages of increase in the foreign trade of each country for the period indicated: Philippines, 20 per cent; Chile, 28 per cent; Brazil, 75 per cent; Argentine, 39 per cent; Venezuela, 31 per cent; Ecuador, 61 per cent; Costa Rica, 39 per cent; Salvador, 113 per cent; and Guatemala, 68 per cent. No one will dare say that any one of these republics are not to-day successful, and yet when they achieved their independence not a single one of them was comparable with the Philippines in population, resources, literacy, or experience in government, and with the exception of the latter, few of them are to-day. And because independence has been so satisfactory, without exception, to those nations that have it, and are therefore familiar with its defects as well as its virtues, and because our guardian, the United States, has so often extolled its advantages both through its great men, its immortal State documents, and indeed through the very greatness of its unquestioned supremacy in the world to-day, I submit that the Filipino people should be congratulated instead of discouraged for their determined aspiration to participate in its blessings. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PEDRO. GIL, MEMBER 'OF THE PHILIPPINE DELEGATION AND MINORITY FLOOR LEADER OF THE PHILIPPINE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. GIL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to ask permission to file a statement expressing my views on the Philippine question. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The statement will be Drinted. (Mr. Gil submitted the following:) 40 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS I. FILIPINO ASPIRATIONS FOR INDEPENDENCE The Philippine delegation has been sent to the United States once more to express the desire of 13.000,000 Filipinos for independence and to urge America to grant it in accordance with her solemn pledge embodied in commitments made by this Great Republic through its authorized representatives. GROWTH OF SENTIMENT DURING SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY The desire for freedom among the Filipinos is truly national. It expressed itself as far back as that memorable period of our history when Magellan's landing in the Island of Cebu in 1521, known in history as the discovery of the Philippines, was resisted by the natives in a praiseworthy although unsuccessful attempt to prevent the islands from falling into foreign hands. The entire period of Spanish occupation which lasted more than three centuries was marked by an ever growing sentiment of nationalism as demonstrated by the many revolutions against Spain which culminated in the establishment of the short-lived Philippine Republic. AMERICAN DEMOCRACY INTTE'NSIFIES DESIRE Our resistance to American arms lasting nearly three years when the United States came is another demonstration of the desire of the Filipinos to live under their own flag. The implantation of a democratic system of government intensified this desire for self-sovereignty. For the structure of that system is based upon the American Constitution with its free institutions, one of the manifestations of which is the free public school where our children learn to love liberty the more from a study of America's own history and traditions. Thus to-day, as a result of the continuous growth of this sentiment, the Filipino people are more insistent than ever in their demand for independence. POLITICAL PARTIES 'UNIT FOR INDEPENDENCE So strong is the desire for freedom among the Filipino people that the political parties, inspired by this popular sentiment, have embodied in their respective platforms the demand for immediate, complete, and absolute independence. Both during election campaigns and during debates in the legislative chambers, conflicts on local issues are as bitter as in the United States, but when it comes to independence both parties are united. No candidate is elected unless he is for independence and all independence resolutions passed yearly by the Philippine Legislature have always been unanimous. The present delegation was created by virtue of a resolution adopted by the Philippine Legislature, both parties uniting and voting for it unanimously. The instructions contained in this resolution provide that the delegation, composed of representatives of both the majority and the minority parties of the legislature, is to work for the granting of early independence, said resolution, adopted October 29, 1929, being as follows: "Re.olvced by the Semate, the Hiouse of Representatives of the Philippines concurring, That a committee of the legislature, be, and the same hereby is, created, which committee shall be composed of the Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, the Hon. Sergio Osmefia. and the Hon. Juan Sumulong. on behalf of the Senate and of tile Hon. Manuel Roxas, the Hon. Manuel C. Briones, and the Hon. Pedro Gil, on behalf of the House of Representatives, and shall, jointly with the resident commissioners, petition the Government and Congress of the United States for the early granting of independence to the Philippines, and submit to them from time to time the views of the legislature on any matter concerning the Philippines under consideration by the Government at Washington." The desire of the Filipino people for liberty which we have thus been instructed to convey to the Congress of the United States is not only an expression of the sentiment of the Philippine Legislature but also of other elements. Year after year, our municipalities, numbering nearly 1,000, as well as all of our provincial governments adopt resolutions for independence with the request that the Philippine Legislature transmit them to the proper authorities in WVashington. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 41 FILIPINO BUSINESS AND LABOR ELEMENTS FAVOR FREEDOM Filipino business and labor organizations also time and again have passed' similar resolutions. In 1929, a convention of Filipino business men was held/ for the first time and one of its first acts was to pass a unanimous resolutionr urging the granting of independence. This action on the part of the Filipinoi business element becomes the more significant when one considers that they' would be among those to feel the economic consequences of independence most strongly. Following is the resolution referred to, adopted February 9, 1929: "Whereas, it has been said repeatedly that only the politicians clamor for Philippine independence; "Whereas, this is the first time that the Filipino business men, as a bodyv have the opportunity to express their sentiments regarding this matter; "Therefore, be it resolved to express, as it is hereby expressed, that the Filipino business men in national convention assembled, strongly favor the national aspiration for independence and are ready to cooperate in the common task for the liberation of the country." Later in the year, an agricultural congress was held and also one of its first acts was to adopt' a unanimous resolution expressing a similar stand on independence. This action is also very significant in that the Filipinos engaged in agriculture, especially those that raise sugarcane, would be greatly affected by independence. AMERICAN FINDINGS CONFIRM EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENCE DESIRE It is important to note that unbiased American opinion testify to the desire of the Filipinos for independence. Even as early as 1899, when the first Philippine Commission headed by Mr. Schurman, which was sent to the Philippines by President McKinley to make a complete survey of the situation, reported the existence of this sentiment among the Filipinos. In Volume I, part 4, Chapter III, page 83 of the report of this commission, we find the following: "For it would be a misrepresentation of facts not to report that ultimate independence-independence after an undefined period of American training-is the aspiration and goal of the Filipinos * * *." The Wood-Forbes Special Mission to the Philippine Islands, which reported against independence, even admitted in its report that "the great bulk of the Christian Filipinos have a very natural desire for independence." It may be noted here that the Christian Filipinos comprise more than 90 per cent of our total population. The rest, composed of Moros and pagans, numbering less than a million in total, have also expressed desire for independence, as may be demonstrated in memorials adopted by them from time to time and submitted to the Philippine Legislature for transmission to the proper authorities in the United States. As a matter of fact, the members of the Philippine senate and house of representatives representing the Moros and the other non-Christian Filipinos voted with the rest of the members of the legislature for the sending of the delegation now appearing before you with instructions, as stated previously, to urge the granting of early independence. Also the report of Carmi Thompson, who was sent by President Coolidge to the Philippines in 1926 to make an investigation of the islands, declared that there is "a widespread and insistent agitation for immediate, complete, and absolute independence. FINAL SOLUTION SHOULD BE GRANT OF INDEPENDENCE Thus in every conceivable way under a democracy the desire of the Filipinos for freedom has manifested itself and its existence confirmed in official American findings. And we come to you to-day, as we have many a time in the past, to urge a final solution of the Philippine question, both in the interest of the Philippines and of the United States. And we respectfully submit that the only solution compatible with the aspirations of the Filipino people and with America's solemn pledge is the grant of independence. We are convinced that America's sense of honor, justice, fair play, and square dealing will prevail and that we may now be permitted to enjoy fully the blessings of freedom and liberty which are America's greatest contribution to humanity. 42 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS II. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INDEPEiDENCE Opposition to Philippine independence is predicated mainly upon the alleged ruinous effect which abolition of free trade would entail. In support of this argument it is contended that the United States is the best market for Philippine exports and that, therefore, discontinuance of free trade would spell disaster to Philippine commerce and trade. There is no doubt that the abolition of the present free trade will have for its immediate effect a serious economic disturbance in the Philippines. But there is also no doubt that after the necessary period of readjustment, the way will then be clear for the development of Philippine commerce and trade along broader and permanent lines. UNITED STATES DEMAND FOR PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS The United States has a strong and natural demand for many of our principal products. The Philippines has always been considered by American manufacturers as one of the best sources of tropical raw materials of the world. The entire history of American-Philippine trade relations bears witness to this fact. From the very beginning of such relations, these islands have always been more important to the United States as a source of raw materials than as a market for American goods. Our exports to the United States have invariably exceeded our imports from her. The fact that our exports to the United States were thirteen times more than our imports from that country even before the establishment of American sovereignty proves conclusively the importance of Philippine products to the United States. This proves the inaccuracy of the allegation that Philippine exports to the United States will disappear upon the discontinuance of free trade. PHILIPPINE EXPORTS TO OTHER MARKETS WILL INCREASE This is not all. Not only will the Philippines continue to export her products to America but will also increase her exports to other countries. For it must be realized that because of the present special tariff arrangement, our exports are being artificially induced to follow the American route and are diverted from other markets. It is argued that nothing in the present free-trade relations prevents our sending our products to other countries, but it is such freetrade relations which precisely prevent a larger Philippine exportation to other nations. It is free trade which has made the American market such an advantageous place for marketing Philippine products and it is only natural that our exports should flow into that market in preference to other markets to which our exports would go otherwise if free trade did not exist. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PHILIPPINE EXPORTS This unnatural diversion through the effects of the free trade is further shown by the geographical distribution of our exports before and after the special tariff arrangement was established. In the early years of the American occupation, and before it, Europe was the principal market for Philippine exports. More than one-half of our foreign shipments were sent to European buyers. In 1900, 55.59 per cent of our total exports went to various European countries. The share of the United States that year was only 12.9 per cent. Asia absorbed 25.98 per cent of our exports to all countries. During the period of nine years from 1900 to 1908, inclusive, the yearly average share of the United States in our exports was 32.6 per cent. In 1909, the year when the free trade was established, this percentage rose immediately to 42.17 per cent, fand 10 years later we find that already 50 per cent of our exports were being shipped to the United States. In 1927, 74.59 per cent of our total exports went to the United States. EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF FREE TRADE ON SUGAR We have admitted that Philippine sugar will suffer greatly with the granting of independence and the abolition of free trade. But even this product will be able to withstand the temporary shock that will follow during the years of readjustment, and that it will be possible to market it elsewhere as may be shown in the following facts and figures: INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 43 Sugar exports from the Philippines were shipped mostly to Hong Kong, China, the United States, and Japan before the free-trade relations with the United States came into effect. The biggest single market for Philippine sugar at that time was Hong Kong, which, in 1900, absorbed 55 per cent of our sugar shipments, Japan coming second in that same year with a share of 20 per cent, while the United States and China had shares of only 3 per cent each. In 1909, which preceded the establishment of the free trade with the United States, Hong Kong was still ahead with a share of 36 per cent, the United States coming second with 32 per cent, and China third with 22 per cent. It should be noted, however, in this connection that the volume of our sugar-export business up to and including the year 1910 was comparatively small, and also that most of it was in the form of muscovado, while to-day the bulk of our sugar output is in the form of centrifugal. But even for years after free trade was established, Hong Kong, China, and Japan continued to bulk large as markets for Philippine sugar. In 1916, a banner in the Philippine sugar exportation, less than two-fifths of the 337,490,000 kilos of sugar then exported went to the United States, the biggest portion of those exports having been absorbed by Hong Kong, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom. EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF FREE TRADE ON TOBACCO Philippine tobacco is another principal Philippine product pictured as suffering disaster in the event that free-trade relations are severed. The situation of this product is not as serious as it is represented, for, like sugar, it will find new outlets. The United States is not now an important market for Philippine leaf tobacco. For most of it is exported to Spain, France, Holland, China, and Hong Kong. As regards Philippine cigars, while almost 80 per cent of our yearly export is absorbed by the United States, it can not be denied that the channel will be diverted to other markets upon discontinuance of free trade. For if we go back to the markets for Philippine cigars before free trade was established, we shall find that the United States did not figure as important, our cigars at that time going mostly to Hong Kong, British East Indies, China, and the United Kingdom, to which again undoubtedly they will go when free trade is abolished. EFFECT OF ABOLITION OF FREE TRADE ON OIL Coconut oil will alao be greatly affected by the abolition of free trade. But, like sugar and tobacco, it will be able to go through the period of readjustment. At present under the free-trade arrangement almost our entire oil exportation goes to the United States. The problem that will have to be confronted in connection with this product will be to reduce the costs of production and operation in order successfully to compete in the American market. But if that is not possible, Philippine oil can be marketed in the United States as copra. In other words, we can stop manufacturing oil and instead sell,opra which, at the present time, is already successfully competing with copra imported into the United States from other countries. COPRA AND HEMP NOT AFFECTED BY ABOLITION As regards copra and hemp, two of the most important products of the Philippines, abolition of free trade will have absolutely no. effect upon them. They will continue to enter the United States even after the severance of freetrade relations with America for they are on the free list of the United States tariff. At the present time Philippine copra and hemp already constitute 30 per cent of the total Philippine exports to the United States, despite the fact that neither of these two products derive any benefit from free trade. PERMANENT ECONOMIC GROWTH PREFERABLE TO TEMPORARY FREE TRADE It will be noted from the foregoing that the abolition of free trade will not cause the total cessation of Philippine-American trade, and that a substantial proportion of the present trade between the two countries will still subsist. It has also been shown that the possible decline of the demand of the United States for Philippine products that may follow can be compensated by an 44 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS increase of our trade in other directions. The disturbance occasioned by the granting of independence and the discontinuance of free trade will thus be only temporary, and after the period of readjustment will have run its course, trade and commerce will again become normal with the added advantage that it will be along broader and permanent lines which is preferable to the present uncertain and temporary situation. The CHAIRMAN. The following communication from Senator Jesse IT. Metcalf, transmitting a letter from the president of the Nicholson File Co., of Providence, R. I., in opposition to granting independence to the Philippines at present, is herewith made a part of these records: UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND) LABOR, January 16, 1930. Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Inclosed please find a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Samuel M. Nicholson, president of the Nicholson File Co., of Providence, R. I., which, I hope, you will take into consideration before reaching any decision on the Philippines matter. Yours very truly, JESSE H. METCALF. NICHOLSON FILE Co., Providence, R. I., January 15, 1930. Hon. JESSE H. METCALF, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Our foreign sales manager, S. Foster Hunt, has brought to my attention the anxiety of our important customers in the Philippines as to the proposed legislation with regard to the independence of the Philippines and the question of tariff on the importations of Philippine products into the United States. We have a very substantial business with the Philippine Islands, which our friends advise us would be badly interrupted by the chaos that would result from independence at present and would be severely injured by the proposed tariff on Philippine products. May I ask that you give the matter most careful consideration so that the advantages which we now enjoy in those islands may not suffer. With kindest regards, I am, Very truly yours, SAMUEL M. NICHOLSON, President. The CHAIRMAN. The following brief by Judge Daniel R. Williams, of San Francisco, formerly of the Philippine Islands and former secretary of the Taft Philippine Commission, dealing with the power of Congress to alienate sovereignty, with special reference to the Philippine Islands, is incorporated in the record at this point: CONGRESS AND PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE (By D. R. Williams) It is traditional that governmental agencies should arrogate all power, all wisdom, and all virtue. On the other hand, our easy-going, sovereign people pay little attention to this idiosyncrasy of their " agents and servants " so long as it remains within the family. Congress pretends authority, for instance, to grant Philippine independence. Americans generally, harking back to the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence, see nothing unusual in the assumption. Should Congress undertake, however, to sell or give the Philippines to Japan or other foreign power-which it can equally do if empowered to alienate sovereignty-its authority in the premises would be immediately and widely challenged. In 1916 a partisan majority in Congress, giving slavish adherence to a stereotyped platform plank, recited that it was "the purpose" of the American INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 45 people to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands. While this pronouncement was palpably made without any mandate whatsoever, our press and public have, with rare exceptions, gratuitously treated it as a solemn pledge by the American people to grant such islands independence. Ratification of the treaty whereunder sovereignty over the Philippines was vested in the United States required and received a two-thirds vote of the Senate of the United States. Apparently nothing anomalous is seen, however, in the existing pretention that such sovereignty can be presently relinquished by a majority vote of the Senate, aided and abetted by a like vote in the House. There is urgent need to determine, if possible, just how all this squares with our scheme of government. Reinforced by various Senators and Congressmen from beet-sugar States-plus other representatives of special interests-the same partisan element in Congress is now massing for a new drive to scuttle the Philippines, pretending, as heretofore, to speak with the voice and upon the authority of the American people. Such proposal involves the prestige of the United States and will vitally affect the destiny of 12,000,000 Filipinos and their descendants, for whose welfare and happiness we stand sponsor before the world. What then, briefly, is the situation? Sovereignty over the Philippines was acquired under treaty cession from Spain. Our Supreme Court, construing the force and effect of this treaty in the Diamond Rings case (183 U. S. 176, 180) stated: "By the third article of the treaty, Spain ceded to the United States 'the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands.' * * * The Philippines thereby ceased, in the language of the treaty, 'to be Spanish.' Ceasing to be Spanish, they ceased to be foreign country. They came under the complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion of the United States, and so became territory of the United States, over which civil government could be established. * * * The Philippines were not simply occupied, but acquired, and having been granted and delivered to the United States by their former master were no longer under the sovereignty of any foreign nation. * * * Spain granted the islands to the United States, and the grantee in accepting them took nothing less than the whole grant." If anything further remains, to be done or can be done by Congress, or by any other entity, to more fully vest sovereignty and dominion over the Philippines in the United States than here indicated, it is up to those so claiming to show the way. The role played by the Government in the acquisition of the Philippines, as of all other territory added to our national domain since the Republic was founded, was simply that of agent and representative of the American people. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (19 How. (U. S.) 393, 448) our Supreme Court, discussing the Louisiana Purchase, stated: "It (Louisiana Territory) was acquired by the General Government, as the representative and trustee of the people of the United States, and it must therefore be held in that character for their common and equal benefit; for it was the people of the several States, acting through their agent and representative. the Federal Government, who in fact acquired the Territory in question, and the Government holds it for their common use until it shall be associated with the other States as a member of the Union." Inasmuch as territory thus acquired must have some form of government pending its admission as a State, it has been held that this obligation devolves upon and should be exercised by Congress. Describing the source and extent of this authority, Justice Brown stated as follows in De Lima v. Bidwell (182 U. S. 1, 196), a case having to do with Porto Rico: "It is an authority which arises, not necessarily from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the case and from the inability of the States to act on the subject. Under this power Congress may deal with the territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial government; it may admit it as a State upon an equality with other States; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers." In other words, such territory, while actually the patrimony of the several States and the people thereof, must needs be administered by Congress; this because the States lack necessary machinery, either severally or collectively, to themselves undertake the task. 92109-30-PT 1-4 46 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The same proposition was stated in another form by Chief Justice Waite in National Bank v. Yankton (101 U. S. 129, 133), as follows: "All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress. The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. They bear much the same relation to the general Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations." Justice Day, in Dorr v. United States (195 U. S. 138, 140), a case arising in the Philippines, stated the limits of this legislative power of Congress over such territory, as follows: "To this I answer that, in common with all other legislative powers of Congress, it finds limits in the express prohibition on Congress not to do certain things; that in the exercise of the legislative power Congress can not pass an ex post facto law or bill of attainder, and so on in respect to each of the other prohibitions contained in the Constitution." In Balzac v. Porto Rico (258 U. S. 298, 312), Chief Justice Taft amplified this statement and negatived the prevailing conception that the Constitution does not extend to the Philippines, as follows: "The Constitution of the United States is in force in Porto Rico as it is wherever and whenever the sovereign power of that government is exerted. This has not only been admitted but emphasized by this court in all its authoritative expressions upon the issues arising in the insular cases especially in Downes v. Bidwell and the Dorr cases. The Constitution, however, contains grants of power and limitations which, in the nature of things, are not always and everywhere applicable, and the real issue in the insular cases was not whether the Constitution extended to the Philippines and Porto Rico when we went there, but which ones of its provisions were applicable by way of limitation upon the exercise of executive and legislative power in dealing with new conditions and requirements. The guaranties of certain fundamental personal rights declared in the Constitution, as, for instance, that no person could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, had from the beginning full application in the Philippines and Porto Rico." Justice Brown, in Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S. 244, 290), stated: "As Congress in governing the territories is subject to the Constitution, it results that all the limitations of the Constitution which are applicable to Congress in exercising this authority necessarily limit its power on this subject. It follows also that every provision of the Constitution which is applicable to the territories is also controlling therein." Despite these express declarations of our highest tribunal, and despite the fact that whatever power Congress now exercises over the Philippines arises Lnder the Constitution, we still find sundry Senators and Congressmen solemnly asserting that the Constitution does not extend to the Philippines, and that it rests with them, in their legislative capacity, to do with such islands as they Iplease. Moreover, while Congress lacks authority to enact any legislation for the Philippines which runs counter to any prohibitions of the Constitution, including that of depriving persons of property without due process of law, it arrogates the despotic power of divesting title and sovereignty of the American people over the entire Archipelago; also the further unrestricted right to alienate such territory, its peoples, lands, and government, to Russia, Abyssinia, or whomsoever it wills, and this upon terms, limitations, and burdens of its own choosing. In other words, Congress would magnify its authority to govern the Philippines, and to legislate therefor in representation of the several States, into a destruction of the very thing over which legislation is authorized and to be exercised. This is a delusion of omnipotence run riot. NO POWER IN CONGRESS TO ALIENATE TERRITORY Approaching the problem from another angle, i. e., the power of Congress to alienate sovereignty when measured in terms of the Constitution, a like conelusion confronts us. As already noted, complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion over the Philippines is in the United States. Further, this dominion and sovereignty were acquired by the Federal Government as the representative and trustee of the American people, to be held and exercised for their common use until such Territory became a member of the Union. Occupying simply the role of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 47 iagent, it is prima facie the government can not now divest this title and sovereignty, duly vested in the people, until and unless power so to do is,delegated to or conferred upon it by the people themselves, the sovereign owners. "The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of government, but in the people from whom the government emanates and who may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty then, in this country, abides with the constituency and not with the agent, and this is true in reference to the Federal and state governments." (Spooner v. McDonnell, Fed. Cases, 13, 249). If the American people have empowered Congress to alienate their sovereignty over the Philippines, or over any other Territory of the United States, such authority must be found in the Constitution, which is the power of attorney of Congress in the premises. As stated by Justice Cooley in his Principles of Constitutional Law, 29-31: " The Government created by the Constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers, and the Constitution is the measure and the test of the powers conferred. Whatever is not conferred is withheld, and belongs to the several States and the people there." In Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46, 90), our Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brewer, stated: "The proposition that there can be legislative powers affecting the Nation as a whole which belong to, although not expressed in, the grant of powers, is in direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a Government of enumerated powers." To the same effect Justice Day in Door v. United States, the Philippine case cited supra, page 140: "It may be regarded as! settled that the Constitution of the United States is the only source of power authorizing action by any branch of the Federal Government. The Government of the United States was born of the Constitution, and the powers which it enjoys or may exercise must be derived either expressly or by implication from that instrument." Since the United States became a nation-now over 150 years-not a square foot of territory once brought under the American flag has ever been alienated. In certain cases of disputed boundaries, or where question of title was involved, there have been adjustments, but the record discloses no single instance where sovereignty, once admittedly vested in the people of the United States, has ever been transferred or relinquished. The test to be applied in determining whether Congress is empowered to act in any specific instance is thus stated by Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution, section 1243: "Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the Constitution; if it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power and necessary to its execution; if it be, then it may be exercised by Congress. If not, Congress can not exercise it." The right to alienate sovereignty of the United States is not among the enumerated powers of Congress in the Constitution, nor is it "properly an incident to any express power and necessary to its execution." To those who believe or pretend otherwise, the suggestion is obvious that they specify where and how such authority is conferred; or, if not conferred, how alienation of American territory by Congress is either necessary or proper under its power to administer and legislate for such territory-in representation of the several States-pending its admission into the Union. CERTAIN CLAIMS MADE BY THOSE ASSERTING CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO ALIENATE THE PHILIPPINES It is argued by some that inasmuch as our Government has acquired territory without express constitutional 'sanction, it can dispense with such authority when it comes to alienation. Even were this premise sound, it amounts simply to claiming that because Congress acted outside its jurisdiction in one instance, it can do so in another, thus making the Constitution a dead letter. The premise, however, is unsound. In American Insurance Co. v. Canton (1 48 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Peters (U. S.) 511, 540), Chief Justice Marshall stated the grounds upon which our Government is authorized to acquire territory as follows: "The Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of tie Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." In De Lima v. Bidwell, cited supra, Justice Brown stated: " One of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory. It is not too much to say it is the rule rather than the exception that a treaty of peace, following upon a war, provides for a cession of territory to the victorious party." The acquisition of territory, therefore, is a necessary "incident" of the powers granted the Government to declare war and make treaties. Once such territory has been acquired, however, and sovereignty has vested in the American people, the powers of Congress with respect thereto enter upon an entirely different phase, i. e., legislating therefor pending its admission as a State. The source and limitations of this authority have been placed upon two grounds: (1) The necessities of the case, arising "from the inability of the States to act upon the subject"; and (2) upon paragraph 2, section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States." Mr. Justice White, in Downes v. Bidwell, cited supra, refers to the matter thus: " In some adjudged cases the power to locally govern at discretion has been declared to arise as an incident of the right to acquire territory. In others it has been based upon the clause of section 3, Article IV, of thle Constitution, which vests Congress with the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States. But the divergence, if not conflict of opinion, does not imply that the authority of Congress to govern the Territories is outside the Constitution, since in either case the right is founded on the Constitution, although referred to different provisions of that instrument." Referring to the powers of Congress under this section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCullough v. Maryland (4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316): "The power (of Congress) 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States,' is not more comprehensive than the power 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution ' the powers of the Government." To the same effect our court in the Dorr case, cited supra, page 146, where it is said: " Regulations in this sense must mean laws, for, as well as States, Territories must be governed by laws." By no possible stretch of the imagination can alienation of sovereignty be construed as an "incident" of the power to make laws. In fact, it would not be legislation at all. Legislation operates upon people, or upon people in relation to things and acts. Alienation of sovereignty has to do simply with rights in territory. As well claim that a person authorized " to administer " lands for an owner under power of attorney-that is, to make provision for tenants, collect rentals, pay taxes, etc.-would have the right, without further, to sell or give the property to third persons. Not only would such action not come under the head of " administration," but any person perpetrating such a breach of trust would very soon find himself wearing a striped uniform. By no other method, however, can the Constitution be tortured into sustaining congressional authority to alienate the Philippine Islands. It has been urged that the power to alienate territory inheres in sovereignty. This is true, but those who argue therefrom that Congress can alienate the Philippines forget that in the United States sovereignty is in the people and not in the President, in Congress, or any governmental agency. As stated by Chief Justice Jay in the early case of Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U. S. 419, 471): "Our rulers * * * do not partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens." In the United States there is no unlimited sovereignty except that which resides in the people themselves. It follows that any expression indulged by Government officials or by Members of Congress-individually or collectively-concerning the Philippines and their future disposition, represent simply their personal views and are in nowise binding upon the American people. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 49 Another argument gravely advanced is, that unless Congress has this power to alienate sovereignty, our Government, in case of a disastrous war involving loss of territory, could not make the necessary cession "without calling a popular referendum." This reasoning is that of laymen. Any lawyer knows that under stress of force majeure all laws and restrictions go by the board, and whatever action is necessary for self-preservation can be taken. The question here is whether Congress can voluntarily alienate sovereignty of the United States simply to satisfy the preconceived notions or political necessities of a majority of its Members. Moreover, should a cession of territory ever be forced upon the United States, it would not be Congress which would do the " alienating," but the President and two-thirds of the Senate under the treaty making power. And treaties can only be entered into between two or more independent nations. It is contended by some that the Philippines are simply " a possession" of the United States, as distinguished from "Territory" of the United States. Our Supreme Court, however, as heretofore seen, specifically states that they are "Territory of the United States over which civil government can be established." As evidencing this, Congress, by its organic act of August 29, 1916, established a complete form of civil government for the Philippines, including executive, judicial, and legislative departments. This organic act or charter differs only in matter of detail from charters of other territory of the United States, and constitutes an equal recognition that the Philippines are "a political subdivision of the outlying dominion of the United States." Every Filipino elected or appointed to any office or position of trust in the Philippines, whether insular, provincial, or municipal, must, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe an oath declaring that he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of the United States, and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Passports are issued to Filipinos of all classes under authority of the United States, which passports entitle the holders, when traveling abroad, to the same consideration and protection as American citizens, and to like service from our consular and diplomatic officers. The United States flag flies over all public buildings in the Philippines, as also over all vessels registered by the Philippine government for domestic or foreign service. Others claim the Philippines have never been "incorporated" as American territory and hence occupy some hazy and undefined position which enables Congress to override the Constitution and work its will upon them. This term "incorporation," unearthed by our courts to amplify the legislative powers of Congress over the Philippines and Porto Rico, has given rise to many fanciful interpretations. Its actual scope, however. is simply to authorize Congress, in its discretion, to extend to or withhold from Filipinos and Porto Ricans certain political and other rights provided for in the Constitution when not of a "fundamental character." As stated by Chief Justice Taft in Balzac v. Porto Rico, cited and quoted supra: "The. Constitution, however, contains grants of power and limitations which in the nature of things are not always and everywhere applicable, and the real issue in the insular cases was not whether the Constitution extended to the Philippines and Porto Rico when we went there but which ones of its provisions were applicable by way of limitation upon the exercise of executive and legislative power in dealing with new conditions and requirements." Neither this decision nor any other found in the books remotely authorizes Congress to arrogate powers outside the Constitution in legislating for the Philippines. Recurring again to our analogy of private lands the assertion that Congress can alienate the Philippines simply because it is permitted wide discretion in their administration is tantamount to claiming that an attorney in fact, because he is given a free hand in the management of property, must, ipso facto, have authority to divest title of his principal in the land itself. Whatever confusion exists as to the status of the Philippines in their relation to the United States arises from failure to appreciate that the civil and political rights of the occupants of such territory-to be determined by Congress-are one thing, and sovereignty and dominion over the territory itself quite another thing. There are seven thousand and odd islands in the Philippine Archipelago, of which possibly 500 are inhabited. No one would seriously contend that United States sovereignty and dominion is limited to the inhabited islands. To so hold would be warrant for any outside power to take possession, fortify, and otherwise use these unpeopled areas at its pleasure. Let us suppose all the islands of the Philippine group were uninhabited when ceded to the United States or that the entire population was presently wiped out 50 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS through some cataclysm of nature. Would any intelligent person insist that some form of "incorporation" by Congress of this uninhabited territory was necessary to more fully vest title and sovereignty thereto in the United States than already exists? As heretofore seen, our Supreme Court has held that the United States now possesses "absolute sovereignty and dominion" over the Philippines; that such islands were not simply occupied but acquired and that the United States in accepting them from Spain "took nothing less than the whole grant." It will be noted, furthermore, that the court was here referring to the status of the territory comprising the Philippines and not to that of the occupants. To evidence this the court proceeds: " The result was the same, although there was no stipulation that the native inhabitants should be incorporated into the body politic, and none securing to them the right to choose their nationality." (Diamond Rings Case, cited supra, p. 180.) This language of the court has reference to Article IX of the treaty, which distinguished between Spanish subjects residing in the Philippines and Porto Rico and the native inhabitants of such territories. The former were given a right to preserve their allegiance to Spain through making choice to that effect within one year, whereas the treaty provision as to the native inhabitants reads: "The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by Congress." The authority of Congress was here limited to determining " the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the ceded territories." This authority not only can not be stretched to include alienation of the territories themselves, but completely negatives any such idea. Moreover, even if any such extraconstitutional power was contemplated, it is ineffective. " The Government of the United States is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over no subject except those which have been delegated to it. Congress can not, by legislation, enlarge the Federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power." (New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 662, 736.) " It need hardly be said that a treaty can not change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument. This results from the nature and fundamental principles of our Government." (Cherokee Tobacco Case, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 616, 620.) The distinction between legislation for the inhabitants of a territory and the status of the territory itself, is further emphasized in De Lima v. Bidwell, cited supra, page 198: "A country ceases to be foreign the instant it becomes domestic. * * * It may undoubtedly become necessary for the adequate administration of a domestic territory, to pass a special act providing for the proper machinery and officers. * * * No act is necessary to make it domestic territory once it has been ceded to the United States." In view of this explicit holding of our Supreme Court that no further act by Congress is necessary to make the Philippines "domestic territory "-such islands having already been ceded to the United States-it is pertinent to ask: What process of "incorporation," or otherwise, would Congress adopt to strengthen this title to the Philippines, or to further fortify this sovereignty of the American people over such territory? In 1924 our Department of Justice rendered an opinion that Congress had the constitutional right to alienate the Philippines. A reference to such opinion, which occupies less than half a newspaper column, discloses it was prepared and submitted by an "Assistant Attorney General," and this within four days after receipt of inquiry on the subject. The affirmative holding of this minor official is predicated entirely upon the theory that the Constitution " does not extend to the Philippines," and that such islands have not been " incorporated" as territory of the United States. Our Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Constitution does extend to the Philippines, and has used about every expression possible in the English language to indicate that nothing further is required, or remains to be done to more fully "incorporate" the Philippine Archipelago as part of our national territory. Notwithstanding its patent defects, however, the opinion referred to-prepared without detailed investigation, and representing simply the viewpoint of one individual-has since been copiously cited as " conclusive on the subject." INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 51 In 1900 one of our major political parties undertook to make Philippine independence the "paramount issue" of its campaign; this in lieu of Mr. Bryan's "16 to 1" heresy, which had gone into the discard. Notwithstanding most of the Bryan relics have since been scrapped, this Philippine plank, intended to inveigle voters, has appeared in every subsequent platform of such party. The anomalous situation is presented, however, that after repeating such plank in its latest platform edition, it added a companion plank reading: "We favor granting to Porto Rico such Territorial form of government as would meet the present economic conditions of the island and provide for the aspirations of her people, with the view to ultimate Statehood accorded to all Territories of the United States since the beginning of our Government. It was apparently overlooked that the treaty with Spain uses identical language in ceding the Philippines to, the United States that was used in ceding Porto Rico, and that there is absolutely no basis in law or in logic for differentiating between Philippine territory and Porto Rican territory. It might also be mentioned, for handy reference, that our other major political party carried a plank in its 1928 platform reading: "The Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by the explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." We would stress against that the question involves sovereignty over territory and not the measure of political or other rights which may be accorded by Congress to the inhabitants of such territory in relation to the United States. Sovereignty is indivisible. Once it is completely and absolutely vested in the United States, it can not be split into classes or categories to satify the alleged needs of special interests nor to lend wings to the political kite of opportunist party politicians. Stripped of extraneous matter, which simply befogs the issue, the proposition is: Can Congress alienate territory of the United States, property of the American people, over which sovereignty and dominion admittedly apply? If such power is conceded, then where is the line to be drawn, if at all? If Congress can alienate the Philippines, where sovereignty is fully vested, can it alienate Hawaii, Alaska, Porto Rico, and the Canal Zone? Its power over the District of Columbia, as also over Governors. Island and other military reservations, is as absolute as that over the Philippines. Can it, therefore, by a majority vote or otherwise, alienate the District of Columbia or transfer sovereignty over these military reservations to a foreign power? California is under United States sovereignty. Would the power of alienation stop at State lines? Chief Justice Marshall, discussing the status of the Northwest Territory in Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 317, decided in 1820, stated: "The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania." This " territory west of the Missouri," here referred to by this great authority on the Constitution, was not held in 1820 under firmer title or more complete sovereignity than is the territory of the Philippines, now functioning under a duly organized government by virtue of laws enacted by the Congress of the United States. It has been urged by some that the distance of the Philippines, the character of their inhabitants, and the possible dangers involved in retaining them, create an emergency situation which can only be met by their alienation, and that unless Congress can act in the matter we are altogether helpless. The time to have considered these contingencies was when the proposed treaty with Spain was pending before our Sernate. Having acquired sovereignty over.such islands, however, it is now somewhat late to whimper over the possible consequences and attempt to evade duties and responsibilities thus voluntarily and deliberately assumed. The argument at best is one of expediency, to which argument our Supreme Court, in Ex parte Mulligan, 4 WalL (U. S.) 2, 121, referred as follows: "No doctrine involving, more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of the provisions of the Constitution can be suspended during any of the great emergencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism." It does not follow, however, that the situation conjured by those who would have the United States slough off and repudiate its Philippine obligations is irremediable. Should time or shaping circumstance disclose-either as regards the Philippines or any other Territory of the United States — that it would be well to reverse the policy (or fears) of the framers of the Constitution, and to 52 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vest in Congress an unrestricted power to alienate sovereignty in its discretion, it is always within the province of the American people, in whom such sovereignty is vested, to confer such power through an amendment to the Constitution. As stated by our Supreme Court in Kansas v. Colorado, cited supra (p. 90): "The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might call for the exercise of further national powers than those granted the United States, and, after making provision for an amendment of the Constitution by which any needed additional powers would be granted, they reserved to themselves all powers not so delegated. It might be well also for those whom our people have clothed with brief authority to read and ponder in this connection the following excerpts from Washington's memorable Farewell Address: "The spirit of encroachment (upon the Constitution) tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transitory benefit which the use can at any time yield." The solitary mention of " territory " in the Constitution occurs in paragraph 2, section 3, Article IV, which reads: " The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claim of'the United States, or any particular State." It has been contended that by virtue of the word " dispose " in this section, Congress is authorized to alienate sovereignty as well as ownership over territory or other property belonging to the United States. Such view is opposed to the plain meaning of thle language and to the uniform interpretation given it l)y our courts. In United States v. Gratiot. 14 Pet. (U. S.) 526, 536, Mr. Justice Thompson. after quoting from such section, stated: "The term 'territory,' as here used, is mierely descriptive of one kind of property and is equivalent to the word ' lands.' And Coniaress has the same power over it as over other property belonging to the United States." Justice Day. in Dorr c. United States, the Philippine case cited supra. page 146. states: "The framers of the Constitution, recognizing the possibility of future extension by acquiring territory outside the States, did not leave to implication alone the power to govern and control territory owned or to be acquired, but in the article quoted (Art. IV) expressly conferred the needful powers to make regulations. Regulations in this sense must mean laws for Territories as well as States must be governed by laws." C(ongress can transfer ownership in lands belonging. to the United States or ~make provision for their transfer. If it can transfer sovereignty along with ownership. however, then it can set up as many independent sovereignties in the Unitcd States as the latter owns pieces of property. Mr. Justice White, in the ca.se of Downes v. Bidwell. heretofore cited, referring to the same subject (p. 314), stated: "I am not unmindful that there has been some contrariety of decision on the subject of the meaning of thie clause empowering Congress to dispose of territory and other property of the United States, some adjudged cases treating that article as referring to property as such and others deriving from it the general grant of power to govern Territories. In view, however, of the relation of the Territories to the Government of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. and the solemn pledge then existing that they should forever ' remain a part of the confederacy of the United States of America,' I can not resist the belief that the theory that the disposing clause relates as well to a relinquishment or cession of sovereignty as to a mere transfer of rights in property is altogether erroneous." INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 53 Considering that when the Constitution was adopted the Government was precluded from alienating sovereignty over any territory then held by the United States, to now contend that the! framers of such instrument contemplated conferring such a power upon Congress as to analogous territory thereafter acquired, particularly when no such power or intent remotely appears in the Constitution, is, to say the least, a bit bizarre. The Constitution confers no greater authority upon Congress over one form of territory than another. Neither does distance, nor the status of the inhabitants, make any difference in the title to such territory, nor in the sovereign rights of the American people thereo. It is to be noted further that this section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution, hereinabove quoted, specifically provides: " * * and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." The Philippine Islands were acquired through an expenditure of blood and treasure by the American people. The United States assumed an outstanding indebtedness of the Philippines amounting to $20,000,000, or, rather, paid that sum to Spain for such account. Eighty per cent of the total land area of the archipelago, aggregating some 60,000,000 acres, is still "public domain," property of the United States. Would any but a casuist argue that a gratuitous or other relinquishment of sovereignty over the Philippines by Congress would not, under these circumstances, operate " to the prejudice" of the several States and the people thereof? Governor Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, was a member of the convention which framed the Federal Constitution. In the convention of the State of' Virginia, which met on June 2, 1788, to consider ratification of such Constitution, various amendments were suggested thereto as a condition of acceptance. Among these amendments was one providing: "No treaty ceding, contracting, restraining, or suspending the territorial rights or claims of the United States, or any of them * * * shall be made but in cases of the most urgent and extreme necessity, nor shall any such treaty be ratified without the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole number of Members of both Houses, respectively." Governor Randolph, who had headed the Virginia delegation in the convention, opposed this proposed amendment, saying: "Of all the amendments this is the most destructive, which requires the consent of three-fourths of both Houses to treaties ceding or restraining territorial rights. * * * There is; no power in the Constitution to cede any part of the United States. The whole number of Congress, being unanimous, have no power to suspend or cede territorial rights. But this amendment admits in the fullest latitude that Congress have a right to dismember the empire." (" Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia," taken in shorthand by David Robertson, second edition, year 1805, p. 340.) The wisdom and prescience of the "Fathers of the Constitution" have been and are a source of pride and exultation to all Americans. Is it not possible that in denying to Congress the right to alienate our national territory, these illustrious mren had a prophetic vision of the cross currents of partisan politics, of the ambition of individuals, and the greed of special interests, which might well sacrifice the honor and best interests of the American people to satisfy questionable ends? Dispassionately analyzed, is not this situation actually presented in the forces back of the present attempt to alienate the Philippines? For good or for ill the United States acquired sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and undertook their government. The responsibility thus assumed was and is that of the American people as a whole, and affects our national honor and good faith regardless of race, creed, or party. Instead of so treating it as an American problem, however, the question of our retention or surrender of such islands was immediately injected into partisan politics, and the future destiny of a primitive and largely helpless people made dependent upon the blind chance of party success or party failure upon entirely unrelated issues. Despite the patent asininity of having Members of Congress split upon the question of Philippine independence-and related issues-according to party label, this grotesque and possibly tragic fiumnery still persists, all in the holy name of party regularity. - At the Philippine end of the line we have a group of ambitious native leaders agitating for American withdrawal from the islands. The late Maj. Gen.. Leonard Wood, a man whose character, ability, and achievements mark him not only as one of our greatest Americans but as a world figure, graphically 54 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS portrayed shortly before his death the tragic consequences to the Filipino people and to the peace of the Pacific, of a present or early surrender of American sovereignty over the Philippines. He stated in part: "The immediate result of our leaving would be strife, disorder, and bloodshed. They might not come instantly, but they would come soon. Moros, whom we have disarmed and who want us to stay and protect them, and Christian Filipinos would fight. Industry, trade, credit would be ruined, with the inevitable concomitants of idleness, hunger, and anarchy. We should look back upon the plight of these 12,00,000 people, who have never known what it meant to sustain themselves, who have never known any freedom except what our flag gave them; we should look back upon their plight with national sorrow, pity, and shame. Japanese would come in, not necessarily as an army, but with their vigorous business methods, and Chinese would swarm hither for all sorts of pursuits. Nor would that be all. We would unsettle the Pacific and the Far East. We would create a situation replete with sinister possibilities. Political impotence, social disorganization, and intertribal conflicts in the Philippines would not be allowed to continue for a great while. Civilized strength from one quarter or another would move toward this vortex of trouble and suffering, and such a movement might precipitate the worst consequences. In any event, the hope of Philippine independence would be dashed for ages if not for all time. Filipino leaders should be able to see these dangers, but they only see a vision of personal power; they are insensate to encompassing realities; they are bent upon gambling with the fate of their own people and the peace of the Pacific." Through no volition of their own, the Filipino people became and are wards of the United States and members of our household. Mr. Chief Justice Taft, when Secretary of War, defined the nature and extent of the responsibility thus assumed as follows: "We are the trustees and guardians of the whole Filipino people, and peculiarly of the ignorant masses, and our trust is not discharged until these masses are given sufficient education to know their civil rights and maintain them against a more powerful class and safely to exercise the political franchise." Inasmuch as chucking these involuntary wards of ours overboard for purely selfish or partisan ends would hardly comport with American principles, advocates of independence who have or pretend regard for the ordinary decencies of life, are forced into the position of asserting that these polyglot Filipino masses are now fully qualified to establish and maintain, against all comers, that most difficult of all governments, a modern democracy, and that its present grant would redound to their welfare and happiness. In so stating, however, they deliberately ignore the testimony of men like General Wood, whlo had no axe to grind, and whose authority to speak on Philippine affairs was gained through long, ardous, and intimate personal contact with every phase of the situation. Instead, they accept, and quote at their face value, the utterly distorted and unreliable claims and statements of selfseeking Filipino lobbyists and propagandists, who come to Washington to further their ends at the expense of the insular treasury. It remains for this partisan group, and particularly certain members of the Senate, to square their attitude in this regard with the anathema heaped upon various other "lobbyists "-concerned likewise in furthering or protecting particular interests-whose activities were held to be subversive of the " dignity and honor " of these elect of the people. Possibly "the divinity that doth hedge a king" absolves them from the rules of conduct held applicable to the common herd. To this partisan element in Congress, and these ambitious Filipino politicians, alike demanding that we quit the islands forthwith, has recently been added the powerful backing of special interests, i. e., sugar, tobacco, vegetable oil, dairy products, etc., who are prepared to sell their birthright of justice and square dealing, and sacrifice every honorable tradition of the American people, for a mess of pottage. Given this combination of hide-bound partisans, opportunist Filipino leaders, and sinister special interests, working in unison to force the hand of the American people in the Philippines, it is altogether obvious why the framers of the Constitution were fearful of conferring upon Congress this extraordinary and dangerous power of alienating sovereignty of the United States. Summarizing the foregoing, what have we? That the United States now possesses "complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion" over the Philippines; that such islands were not simply occu INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 55 pied but acquired, and that the United States in accepting them from Spain "took nothing less than the whole grant." That in acquiring the Philippines, the Federal Government acted simply as "the representative and trustee" of the people of the United States, and that it holds such territory " in that character" for "their common and equal benefit " until admitted as a State of the Union. That congressional authority over the Philippines is limited to governing them, i. e., legislating therefor, so long as they occupy a territorial status which right arises "from inability of the States to act on the subject," or under its power "4 to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." That the Constitution extends to the Philippines; that it is the source of any powers now exercised by Congress in the premises, and that it (Congress) is without authority to go outside or override the Constitution in its Philippine,dealings. That the power to alienate sovereignty over the Philippines, or over any Territory of the United States, can not be exercised by Congress until and unless the American people-the sovereign owners-confer such authority upon it. That the Constitution, which "is the measure and the test of powers conferred upon Congress," not only contains no grant of power to alienate sovereignty of the United States, either expressly or impliedly, but the existence of any such power was specifically negatived by one of the framers of that instrument. That relinquishment of sovereignty over territory is not an "incident" of the power to legislate therefor, but is diametrically opposed thereto; this because any such action would destroy the very thing which was being administered for and on behalf of its owners, the American people. That the right of Congress to provide a government for the Philippines and to determine "the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants" confers no power upon it to alienate sovereignty over the territory comprising such islands, which sovereignty would equally apply if the archipelago was altogether uninhabited. That while Congress can transfer ownership in " territory or other property belonging to the United States," such transfer does not and can not include sovereignty over the territory itself, which sovereignty is vested and remains in the several States and the people thereof. That it rests With Congress to "incorporate" the Filipino peoples into our body politic, and, in its discretion, to admit the Philippines as a State of the Union. No action is required or can be taken by Congress, however, to further make such islands " domestic territory " of the United States or to more fully " incorporate" them as part of our national territory. That if Congress can grant Philippine independence, i. e., relinquish sovereignty of the United States over such territory, it can equally alienate such sovereignty to any foreign power, and this upon terms and conditions of its own choosing. That alienation of the Philippines would be " to the prejudice" of the United States and of the particular States, and in violation of section 3, Article IV of the Constitution. That sovereignty over the Philippines having been acquired by treaty, duly executed by the President and ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, can not now be voluntarily relinquished by a majority vote of the Senate and House, nor by any other action of such bodies. That inasmuch as " our rulers " —Members of Congress and other Government officials-" do not participate in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens," any expression or "preambles" indulged by them as to the future disposition of the Philippines represent nothing more than their personal views on the subject. That, given the fact that relinquishment of sovereignty over the Philippines is now largely urged in Congress by a partisan group and its "political allies " — and that they are backed and supported in such attempt by ruthless special interests seeking profit therefrom to the discredit of the American people as a whole-the prescience of the framers of the Constitution in reserving to the people themselves this power "to dismember our national empire," is amply justified. That if the American people —notwithstanding the sorry exhibition now being staged-are desirous of conferring upon Congress this extraordinary power of alienating their sovereignty over the Philippines, or over any other territory of 56 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS the United States, it is within their province, as sovereign owners of such territory, so to do; but it must be done, if at all, in manner and form as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States. There has been much oratory indulged recently about " contempt of the Constitution," and other alleged legal moral shortcomings of the American people, in which hue-and-cry Members of Congress have led the pack. Should it be contended in any quarter, therefore, that the within argument is not conclusive upon the power of Congress to alienate sovereignty, but at most simply casts a doubt upon its authority so to do, what then should be the attitude of our worthy Senators and Congressmen in the premises? The answer to this, and it will bear careful reading, is set out by Mr. Justice Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, page 109, as follows: " But when all the legitimate lights for ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution have been made use of, it may still happen that the construction remains a matter of doubt. In such a case it seems clear that everyone called upon to act where, in his opinion, the proposed action would be of doubtful constitutionality, is bound upon the doubt alone to abstain from acting. Whoever derives power from the Constitution to perform any public function is disloyal to that instrument, and grossly derelict in duty, if he does that which he is not reasonably satisfied the Constitution permits. Whether the power be legislative, executive, or judicial, there is manifest disregard of constitutional and moral obligation by one who, having taken oath to support that instrument, takes part in an action which he can not say he believes to be no violation of its provisions. A doubt of the constitutionality of any proposed legislative enactment should in any case be reason sufficient for refusing to attempt it; and, if legislators do not act upon this principle, the reasons upon which are based the judicial decisions sustaining legislation in very many cases will cease to be of force." It is up to Congress. Will it have the vision, the sincerity, and the statesmanship to hew to the line, or will it continue, as in the past, to play politics and camouflage the real issue by indulging bromidic formulae and shopworn slogans? The CHAIRMAN. Resolutions adopted by the municipal government of Calinog, P. I.; by the provincial government of Zamboanga, P. I.; by the municipal government of Poras, Province of Pampanga, P. I.; by the Veterans of the Revolution Pro-Independence of the Philippines; and by the Confederation of the Evangelical Churches in the Philippines, are herewith incorporated in the record: MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CALINOG, PROVINCE OF ILOILO, P. I. Extract from the record of the extraordinary session of the municipal council of Calinog. held in the assembly room of the same, on November 5, 1929. Present: (List of names follows). Absent: None. On motion of Councillor Vicente Castronuevo, seconded by Vice President Restituto Celeste, be it resolved to approve the following resolution: "Resolution No. 154 "Inasmuch as Senator William H. King of Utah has presented a bill in the Congress of the United States granting political independence to the Philippine nation, but said bill failed by a majority of 6 votes; and "Inasmuch as Senator Bingham. chairman of the Committee on Territories and Insular Possessions of the United States, has promised to reconsider and act upon the bill of Senator King on the granting of independence to the Philippines, at the beginning of the next session of Congress in December of this year 1929; and " Inasmuch as information recently published by the local press says that besides Senator King, there are four Senators considered to be in favor of the independence of the Philippines, among whom is Mr. George Nye, of North Dakota, who said that 'American dominion in the Philippines is a retrocession to the Middle Ages, since Filipinos are quite prepared to maintain their own government and their destiny with elevated patriotic sentiments, similar to those of our forefathers, and for this reason, I shall give my vote in favor of their independence' and INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 57 "Inasmuch as in said bill there is reflected the true aspiration and hope cherished for more than 30 years by the Philippine nation; and " Inasmuch as this municipal council, as the real representative of the people of Calinog, Province of Iloilo, interpreting the desire for independence, in harmony with the true feeling and altruistic purposes of the magnanimous people of the United States of America, in whose action we have faith; and "Inasmuch as said motion is duly seconded: Be it "Resolved, That the municipal council of Calinog adopt a resolution, as is adopted by this present, expressing the unanimous patriotic sentiment of this body in favor of said bill; be it "Resolved, moreover, To express to Senators King, Bingham, and Nye the most hearty gratitude of this council for their praiseworthy desires to present and support said bill aiming at the liberalization of our cause; be it "Resolved finally, That certified copies of this resolution be sent by the municipal secretary to Senators King, Bingham, and Nye and to the President of the Great Republic of the United States of America by the provincial council of Iloilo and the mission for the independence of the Philippines." Approved unanimously. It is hereby certified that the above resolution is faithfully transcribed. V. R. GATICALES, Municipal Secretary. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, ZAMBOANGA, P. I. Excerpt from the minutes of the regular sessions held by the Provincial Board of Zamboanga, at Zamboanga on November 23 and 25, 1929. Present: Hon. Agustin L. Alvarez, provincial governor; Mr. N. Valderrosa, provincial treasurer; and Mr. Carlos Camins, third member. Absent: None. The provincial governor introduced the following resolution: "Resolution No. 795 " Whereas there is at present in the Congress of the United States a movement on foot to grant independence to the Philippine Islands; " Whereas a Philippine independence mission is being sent to the United States by the Philippine Legislature to take advantage of said movement and obtain independence for the Philippine Islands; "Whereas the inhabitants of the Province of Zamboanga are in favor of the sending this time of an independence mission to the United States: Therefore, be it "Resolved, That the Provincial Board of Zamboanga, as the genuine representative of the inhabitants of the Province, does hereby adhere to, and support the sending of, said independence mission to the United States to work for the independence of the islands: Be it further "Resolved, That in case it is not possible this time to obtain an absolute, immediate, and complete independence for the Philippines, the Provincial Board of Zamboanga requests the Philippine independence mission to work and obtain from the United States Congress whatever measure that would increase the powers of the Filipinos in the management of the Philippine Government: Be it also further " Resolved, That in case an immediate independence can not be obtained this time, that the Philippine independence mission be requested, as is hereby respectfully and earnestly requested, to have the United States Congress amend the Jones Law in all its provisions referring to M ndanao and Sulu so as to place these southern islands in the same political standing as the Provinces of Luzon and Visayas, and to enable them to elect, by popular vote, their senators and representatives, instead of the appointed ones, who, for reasons known to everybody, have been shorn of all political influence to the detriment and prejudice of the interests of these southern islands; "Resolved further, That copies of this resolution be furn'shed to all and each member of the Philippine independence mission, the Philippine Commissioners in Washington, and the chairman of the Committees on Insular Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress." Carr ed unanimously. I hereby certify to the correctness of the above-quoted resolution. G. LEDESMA, Secret'ary. 58 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF PORAC, PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA, P. I. Extract from the minutes of the special meeting of the municipal council of Porac, Province of Pampanga, held at Porac on December 14, 1929. Resolution No. 63 Whereas the Hon. William H. King, Senator of the United States Congress. took so deep an interest in the Philippine independence question as is evidenced by his resolution of the Philippine independence, although said resolution was turned down by the American Senate by a vote of 45 to 36; Whereas this municipal council, in its name and in the name of the people of the town, has always sustained the political aspirations of the people of the Philippine Islands for our immediate, absolute, and complete political emancipation; Whereas the American Congress is now to consider the Philippine independence resolution early in the opening of the American Congress this month: Now, therefore, On motion of the municipal president, seconded by councilor, Mr. Jose Juyco. Resolved, That this municipal council do and hereby does felicitate Senator William H. King, of the United States Senate, for the deep interest he has taken in the Philippine independence question and thanking him and all the Senators who voted for our independen ce, ats well as Senators Bingham, A. R. Robinson, W. E. Borah, Hiram Johnson, and all the Senators of the United States Senate for the kind attention they have given to our national cause, reiterating the United States Congress of the desire and demand of the Filipino people to obtain their immediate, absolute, and complete emancipation, requesting that they give prompt favorable justice to this petition of the people so anxious of its liberty. Resolved further. That the municipal secretary transcribe copies of this resolution to the Hon. Senator King and to the United States Senate. Approved unanimously. I hereby certify to the correctness of the above-quoted resolution. [SEAL.] SISENANDO C. DIZON, Municipal Secretary. EXTRAORDINARY ASSEMBLY CELEBRATED BY THE VETERANS OF THE REVOLUTION PRO-INDEPENDENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE 12TH OF OCTOBER, 1929 In the city of Naga, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippine Islands, the Veterans of the Revolution Pro-Independence of the Philippines, under the presidency of General Ludovico Arejola y Padilla, held an extraordinary general convention at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, October 12, 1929, in which the m nutes of the previous convention were read and unanimously approved. The president informed the conventionists that the object of the convention was no other than to deal with the immediate, absolute, and complete independence of the Philippines, for in the month of December of the present year, 1929, this question will be submitted to the United States Congress for its definite solution. The chair believes that, in dealing with a question on which the life and death of the national personality of the Filipino people, the veterans, who have been working for liberty since remote times with consequent privations, pains, and sacrifices, can not look upon this question with indifference, without taking an active part in its solution. The assembly, understanding the situation and after a long discussion of the manner and form of its intervention in the solution of the problem, adopted the following: RESOLUTION "(1) Whereas in the month of December of the current year 1929, the vital question of immediate, absolute, and complete independence of the Philippines will be submitted to the United States Congress for its discussion and definite solution; INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 59 "(2) Whereas since said independence being the constant aspiration of the Filipino people for which they have been constantly struggling amidst privations, pains, and sacrifices, the Filipino people, since they have ben deprived of this independence for more than three centuries, can not look with indifference upon this question without taking an active part with the view to obtaining its vindication through the justice and liberality of the Amercan people, under whose trust the political future of these islands is placed; "(3) Whereas if it is true that due to the constant and tenacious effort and" principally to the help and cooperation of the American people, there was an occasion, about 31 years ago, when the Filipino people had won the vindication of their liberty from their former mother country, Spain, as a consequence of which was proclaimed the de facto Philippine Republic, it is no less true that they have lost that same liberty arising from, the result of the war between Spain and America, in which, upon the treaty of peace in Paris, the former ceded to the latter her alleged sovereignty over the Philippines; "(4) Whereas by virtue of said cession, America in her turn proclaimed her sovereignty over the Philippines, which, although it has been proclaimed with the best of intentions, has caused misgivings in the minds of the people who had never been heard when the cession was effected; "(5) Whereas the Filipinos, having considered such cession as unjust, for the reason that Spain, in effecting it, no longer had any power over the Philippines and consequently could not cede any right which she did not, possess, presented an energetic protest which'brought about an armed conflict between the American Army and the Filipino army; "(6) Whereas within the strongest period of the fight negotiation of peace was initiated, and having rendered both sides in mutual and reciprocal ex'planation that America according to the Americans, has come to the Philippines not to enslave the Filipinos nor to take their territory, but to help her in promoting progress and also her attainment for long liberty, while on the other hand the Filipinos alleged that when they took armaments they did not have intentions of fighting against their allies, the Americans, but only to defend the liberty of their native land; arriving to an intelligence which returned their friendship. and this proportionated a grand facilities to the negotiations, which is being verified; "(7) Whereas having accepted the Filipinos all the importance and value of the declarations of the representatives of the United States, and taking into consideration her history and political antecedents which was the same to that of the Filipinos, her prestige and representation before the international concert of free nations, the formality and honesty of their promise and lastly the instructions of Honorable McKinley to his civil commission in the Philippines which says: 'If it is true that the Philippines is under our control, but not to exploit her, instead to unroll, to civilize her in the science of government for liberty,' they accepted with their utmost confidence and fate the negotiation in virtue of the same, peace took effect in the Philippines; "(8) Whereas officially declared the peace, the Filipinos then at arm with the aim of overthrowing all kinds of obstacles to the Government of America and to give her the best field in her administration and management of the Philippine Islands, for the accomplishment of her promise they disregarded their attitude and returned to private life and limited to form a private association known as the Veterans of the Revolution Pro-Independence, whose aim is no other than to preserve unity, to render mutual and reciprocal protection, and to cooperate with the constituted government to the success of her administration. "(9) Whereas after the 30 years of the American sovereignty in this territory during such time the Philippines has been submitted to different trials giving her at the first time more liberty and gradual intervention in the government creating there after the Philippine Assembly the members of which were all Filipinos, as a result of the trial of the management of their own interest it was favorable basing upon their capacity to their own independent government. "(10) Whereas in view of the success America with her noble desire to fulfill her promise compiled a project of a bill known as Jones bill No. 1, which granted to the Filipinos, the Senate and the decree of independence within eight years after the law has been implanted, said allowance was reduced to 60 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS four years because of the Clark amendment which was considered sufficient time to the preparation of the Philippine Islands for liberty; said bill was unfortunately disapproved to become a law, but it was not due to the fault of the Americans but the fault of some Filipino leaders who, only putting on their own personal interest rather than that of their country, worked desirously just to ruin the said amendment and in fact they were able to ruin it against the will of the people with the reasons that the country is not yet ready for her national liberty; "(11) Whereas, faithful to her promise, the United States added another project of law in spite of the failure of the first one, and this was known as the Jones bill No. 2, wherein in granting the senate to the Philippines she was promised to have her independence under the condition that the Filipinos should organize a stable government, and this project was approved; "(12) Whereas said stable government was implanted and recognized officially by the late Governor General Francis Burton Harrison and later approved by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. With this motive he recommended in his message to the Congress the acknowledgment of the immediate, absolute, and complete independence of the Philippines in view of the fact that she has satisfactorily fulfilled the conditions imposed on her by the Jones bill; "(13) Whereas due to the change of government in the United States, and also of the World War, said presidential recommendation was left without any effect, having then passed for years untouched in Congress in spite of the work of the independence mission appointed by the legislature of the Philippines: "(14) Whereas in virtue of the activities and work of the Americans that favor and sympathize with the Philippine national cause, some of whom are worth mentioning, as Senators William H. King, Key Pittman, Edwin S. Broussard, Hiram Bingham, Carl Hayden, Arthur H. Vandcnberg, Hiram Johnson, and others, the question of the Philippine independence will be discussed and resolved definitely in the Congress, as said in paragraph 1 of this resolution, and constituting the same the life or death of the national personality of the Philippines, the Veterans of the Revolution Pro-Independence, interested in the liberty of their country, they can (lo no other thing without writing down in a solemn form the unconditional desire for the said liberty before the sovereign power, solemnly affirming as reasons in their favor that since the Philippines have shown a satisfactory proof for an independent government, according to the above-related events, they believed that the opportune moment has come that her absolute and complete independence be decreed without delav by the Government and Congress of the United States of America, with which not only it will give a true valor to her promise, but it will show before the *civilized world that not in vain she has made herself a rich, grand, and powerful Nation to be the protector of justice and liberty of small nations weak and oppressed. "Therefore, after asking for the divine protection, so that this resolution which originated from the hearts of the 12,000,000 Filipinos covetous of their liberty may at last obtain from the sovereign power the favorable decision: " Resolved, To implore, as at present they are imploring in their names and in representation of the Philippines to the Government and Congress of the United States that without delay may decree to the Filipinos the absolute, immediate, and complete independence of their country, stating thereof in such a categorical and solemn way that this favor Nwill never be forgotten, and it will always be gratified by the Filipinos to the Americans for the present and future generations: "Resolved also, To extend the most sincere thanks to Senator William H. King, Edwin Broussard, Hiram Bingham, Carl Hayden, Key Pittmlan, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Hiram Johnson, and others for the interest of the same, who have taken part in this important question, awaiting them not to abandon their work until after the Philippines are seen free, assuring them that this country will never forget to preserve eternally the memory as protector of their national liberty. "Remit a certified copy of this resolution to the President of the United States of America, Hon. Hoover, the President of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of United States, to Senator Hon. William H. King, the Committee of Lands of the Senate, Hon. Hiram Bingham, Senator Edwin Broussard, the Resident Commissioners of the Philippine Legislature, the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 61 committee of Independence, to the press, the Philippine Republic, which is edited at Washington, and to the local newspapers, La Opinion, El Debate. Heraldo Bicol, Bicolandia, requesting them to publish this resolution." Unanimously approved to-day, October 12, 1929. This is the true copy of the original. Certified correct to-day, 25th of October, 1929, at Naga, Camarines Sur, P. I. Seen good: LUDOVICO APEJOLA, President. IMARCOS ALEGRE, Secretary General. CONFEDERACION DE LAS IGLESIAS EVANGELICAS EN FILIPINAS On the occasion of the celebration of the National Thanksgiving Day by the Confederation of the Evangelical Churches in the Philippines on November 30, 1929, in this city of Manila, P. I., the following resolution was unanimously adopted by its members: Whereas ever since the Philippine revolution broke out against the governing power of the Spanish sovereignty, the Filipino people have demonstrated their true desire to be free and independent and to have a government of their own to rule their own subjects, according to the sacred principles and will of God for all nations He created on earth; Whereas the desired freedom and independence is an inborn heritage from God to all nations in the universe, and for this reason the aspiration for freedom, which is founded upon the lofty principles of Christianity, emanated from the words of God, written and engraved in the Sacred Scriptures, is always remaining alive in the hearts of the Filipino people, who are anxious and desirous to be independent like other nations in the globe; Whereas at the present time there are many beloved and powerful sons of America in the United States who are working for the cause of the Filipino people, defending the rights of the latter to freedom, appealing and petitioning before the American Congress that the Filipino people should be given the independence they have been longing for: Therefore, be it Resolved, To adopt, as it is hereby adopted, by the Confederation of the Evangelical Churches in the Philippines, all resolutions and petitions heretofore presented before the American Congress looking toward the freedom of the Filipino people; be it Resolved further, To petition, as it is hereby petitioned, from Congress to show to the Filipino people the liberating hands of America in order that she may return to them their desired liberty-the liberty of the only Christian nation in the Far East, that had long been yearning the merciful consent of America, for the sake of the glory and power of God and further diffusion of the lofty principles of American Nation; and be it Resolved furthermore, To send this resolution to the two law-making bodies of America and also to the Philippine mission of independence that are now and then going to America to join the others who are burning their candles at both ends to realize the sacred desire of the Filipino people. Approved: GIL DOMINGO, Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. The hour is getting a little late and I am desirous of having a meeting of the committee on another matter. Therefore, the committee will adjourn now to meet at the call of the chair. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned to meet at the call of the chair.) 92109-30-PT 1 5 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEES ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to the adjournment on Wednesday, January 15, 1930, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate Commerce, the Capitol, at 10 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Johnson, Nye, Metcalt, Vandenberg, Harris, and Hawes. Also present: Senator King, of Utah. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will continue our hearings in regard to the various bills that have been introduced, particularly the bill of Senator King (S. 3108) providing for independence as rapidly as it can be arranged through a constitutional convention, and Senate Joint Resolution 113, introduced by the chairman of the committee, providing for a conference on the Philippine question to be called in the Philippine Islands this fall by the President of the United States. I have received a considerable number of letters and telegrams, chiefly in opposition to the bill of Senator King, S. 3108, and in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 113. I do not think that it is necessary to put the text of these communications in the record, but a notation will be made in the record of the individuals from whom they have been received. Senator VANDENBERG. Is that in the nature of a business protest? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; apparently it is chiefly a business protest. Would you like to have me read the telegrams? Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to hear the names of the parties sending them. The CHAIRMAN. Here is a telegram from Cleveland, Ohio, signed by the Walter A. Goldsmith Co., saying: We are opposed to the King bill granting independence to the Philippines, as we do not feel they are ready for it at this time, and we earnestly recommend that you consider the Bingham resolution. One from the Monarch Aluminum Ware Co., Cleveland, Ohio, to this effect: We hereby enter our protest against the passage of the King billAnd so forth. From Leslie Evans & Co., New Work: We wish to record our protest against any unusual act of the Government in the matter of Philippine independence which would imperil American sovereignty and American trade interests. 63 64 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS From the Gerson Stewart Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio: We (desire to enter our protest against enactment of King bill granting Philippines independence, as we do not believe the Philippines capable of selfgovernment. Will support Senator Bingham's resolution. From the Acme Foundry Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio: In our opinion, the Philippines are not ready for independence and should continue to have our stable government for their own benefit and that of our American manufacturers. Senator VANDENBERG. Especially the latter. The CHAIRxAN. One from Cleveland, Ohio, signed by the Morreau Hexter Co., protesting against the King bill. Another, from Enoch Morgan Sons Co., New York: Understand hearings before your committee on Philippine independence start 15th January. Urge you to oppose independence. Philippines not prepared for it. Balance of power in Orient at stake, as well as good faith of United States to Filipinos and to those of us who have built up mutually beneficial trade with them. From tile Master Builders Co., Cleveland, Ohio: As an exlporter to Philippines we earnestly urge defeat of King bill. Any change in status quo will bring unstable government and be injurious to best interests ()f Filipilno allnd American. From Willialn Albert Harbison, Graybar Building, New York City, president Augustan Cocoanut Co.; president Radium Emanation Corporation; member Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce: Strongly in favor retention of Philippine Islands until fully stabilized government established there. When that time comes a plebecite in the Islands should detelrmine whether they desire union with the United States or independence. In case of independence this country should exercise a protectorate over the Islands as in the case of Cuba, to prevent exploitation by any other selfishly inspired country and to reestablish law and order in case insurrection developed. Another from E. A. Eckhouse, president Central Brass Manufacturing Co.. Cleveland, Ohio, protesting against immediate indepenclence. Another from Chicago, from James S. Kirk & Co.: We as manufacturers using large quantities coconut oil from Philippines are strongly opposed to any immediate action towards Philippine independence, believing that the interests of manufacturers in the soap industry as well as that of the other consumer will be seriously impaired should the, Philippine independence be granted. Telegramls from Universal Steel Co., Cleveland; Cleveland Automiatic Machine Co., Cleveland; Friedman, Blau. Farber Co.. Cleveland; John H. Watson, president the Corrigan MeKinney Steel Co., Cleveland; B. S. Pearsall, president B. S. Pearsall Butter Co., Elgin, Ill; the:Watson Machine Co., Paterson, N. J.; Sprout, Waldron & Co.. Muncy, Pa.; James H. Baker, president Franklin Baker Co., Hoboken, N. J.; expressing opposition to Philippine independence. A telegram from E. K. Hays, Cleveland, Ohio: Against K'ng- bill granting Philippine independence both on economic grounds and ethical grounds. One from A. L. Littman, Cleveland, Ohio, against the passage of the King bill. One from the Frankel Bros., Cleveland, Ohio: INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 65 We believe to grant Philippines their independence at this time would be a grave mistake. We are therefore opposed to Senate bill 2500, known as the King billAnd so forth. One from the Wm. S. Adler Co., Cleveland, Ohio: We are of the opinion that it would be much more advisable to follow Senator Hiram Bingham's bill than the King bill. A telegram from the Chandler & Price Co., Cleveland: Regarding King bill, we are strongly of the opinion that granting so-called independence to Philippine Islands at this time would not serve the best interest of the people of these islands. It would certainly injure many lines of business in this country and result in a gain to foreign competitors at the expense of American manufacturers with no real compensating benefit to the Philippine people. We hope your committee will not approve this bill. One from E. A. Emerson, vice president and managing director of the Armco International Coporation, Middletown, Ohio: Based on our personal knowledge of and continuous contact with the Philippine Islands, we strongly urge your committee to report against the King resolution which would grant independence to the Philippine Islands. We feel that relinquishing our responsibility to the Philippine Islands at this time would be a selfish and disastrous act. One from New York, signed by Federated Textiles Incorporated, American Bleached Goods Co., 40 Worth Street, New York City; Kelsey Wilton Textile Corporation, 40 Worth Street, New York City; Ponemah Mills, Taftville, Conn.; Lorraine Manufacturing Co., Pawtucket, R. I.; Sayles Biltmore Bleachery, Biltmore, N. C.; Sayles Bleacheries, Saylesville, R. I.: The undersigned companies sell about one million dollars of their products of manufactured cottons to the Philippine Islands. This business would go to Japan if the islands were free. The above goods manufactured in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the South and if the business stopped many operatives would be thrown out of work. The following is a letter that Senator Overman sent me from the Henrietta Mills, protesting against the granting of immediate independence to the Philippines: THE HENRIETTA MILLS, New York, January 13, 1930. Hon. LEE S. OVERMAN, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: As manufacturers of cotton goods we are interested in the bill introduced in the Senate by Senator King of Utah, and the similar bill introduced in the House by Representative Knutson of Minnesota, both in effect providing for immediate independence of the Philippines and on which hearings are expected to be held in Washington this month. We operate cotton mills in North Carolina and South Carolina, and are keenly interested and to a good extent dependent on the maintenance of the present volume of exports to the Philippines. We note from the figures issued by the United States Department of Commerce for the year 1928 that the Philippines are the largest export market for American cotton goods, and that the total volume in that year amounted to $15,398,033. Cotton goods in that year are also shown as the second largest Philippine import item, being exceeded by iron and steel and manufacturers thereof which amounted to $15,795,785. In review, it is highly interesting and pertinent that in 1908, the year before free-trade relations between the Philippines and the United States were established, trade imports into the Philippines amounted to only $5,101,836, and there has been a steady advance from that year; in 1928 the total imports amounted to $83,858,068. If the present affiliation between the United States 66 INDEPEND1ENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and the Philippines were dissolved and duties placed by us on imports from the Philippines, there would in all probability be reciprocal duties placed by the Philippines on articles they import from us. The fact that the Philippine cotton-goods imports from us are as large as they are is not only dependent on the fact that no duty is placed on our products, but that an effective duty is levied by them on imports on cotton goods from Japan and China. The Philippine export market would be speedily lost to United States manufacturers if the present free-trade arrangements were discontinued. We quote below a statement of the Pacific Commercial Co., of 80 Wall Street, with which we agree: ' We feel that peace in the orient is more likely to be mainltaine(ld and that the Filipinos will continue to make progress by having the Un ted States renman in possession of the Philippine Islands. On the other hand. should the United States withdraw from the Philipp.nes, its prestige and welfare and its future as a Pacific power would suffer a severe setback. and if the Philippines are turned loose a duty would be levied against all United States products for the same amount as any other country would pay, and this coupled with tha lower purchasing power of the Filipinos, due to their inability to market any of their products in the United States, would cause the import trade from the United States to the Philippines to dwindle to a mere fraction of what it is to-day." I have also a letter from Henry W. Peabody & Co.. 17 State Street, New York City, which reads as follows: Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, Chairman Commnittee on Territories and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Wlashington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: It is our desire to go on record before the Congress of the United States through your honorable committee as being unalterably opposed to immediate independence for the Philippine Islands. Our representative first visited the Philippine Islands about 1884, and since that time we have been closely connected with them through our own office. representatives. and agents. Our personal knowledge of conditions in the Philippine Islands, as they have existed since 1884 and now exist, convinces us beyond alny doubt that the Philippines are not yet ready for independence. In our opinion, immediate independence would do the Philippines and the Filipino people incalculable damage and would reveal the people of the United States as being unmindful of the obligations which they have themselves assumed Moreover, it would seem to be a grave error to allow this troublesome question of Philippine independence to come to a head at a time when Congress is considering the question of tariff, for, regardless of the merits of the question, should immediate independence be granted, the motives of those Congressmen voting in favor of it would be questioned not only by a large number of (citizens of the United States but by the world at large. We. therefore, urge favorable action on the bill which you as chairman of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs have introduced into the Senate which provides for the appointment of a committee to study the entire question and make their recomnmendations in due course. Approaching this question from a business standpoint-and as large exporters of American merchandise and farm products to the Philippine Islands and equally large importers of Philippine products to the United States we are qualified to speak from that standpoint-it is our firm belief that immediate independence would result in irreparable damage to us and other firms and individuals engaged in business with the Philippine Islands. Surely the people of the United States, through their Congress, will not so countenance any action which will result in such an injustice. If there is any information which will be of assistance to you or your committee in connection with this question, please do not hesitate to call upon us. The following letter has been received from the Stamford Foundry Co., Stamford, Conn.: Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, Washington, D. C. SIR: In view of the political conditions which would inevitably result in the Philippines if those islands were made independent, amounting to practical anarchy or constant civil war, with probable ultimate bankruptcy, and their INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 67 absorption by some more powerful country, we could do the law-abiding element of those islands no greater unkindness than to turn the islands loose to. their fate. Certainly no condition which they could themselves achieve could produce economic results in any degree comparable to what has been accomplished in the way of trade between the islands and this country, and it seems monstrous if for the benefit of one or two selfish interests this magnificent trade should be destroyed. We sincerely hope that you will vigorously oppose any measure looking to the granting of independence of the islands. Dayton, Price & Co., 1 Park Avenue, New York, export service corporation, write as follows on this subject: The Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, Chairman Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, The Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: We note from the daily newspapers that frequent reference is made to the question of granting independence to the Filipinos and we understand that a bill has already been introduced in Congress with that object in view. We also understand that hearings on this bill are to commence very shortly. There are a few facts in connection with this matter to which, as one of your constituents. we would like to direct your attention. While much emphasis has been placed on the danger of increased importations f.rom the Philippines into this country of such commodities as sugar and copra, little or nothing has been said of the importance of the Philippines as an outlet for our manufacturers and producers. According to the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Philippine Islands rank fifteenth in the list of our 68 principal export customers. They are at present consuming more American cotton goods and American meat and dairy products than any other export market which we have throughout the world. As a further indication of the importance of the Philippines to us, we wish to further remind you that from 1908, when free trade with the United States began, to the end of 1928 their purchases of American-made goods of all kinds increased from a little over $5,000,000 to more than $83,000,000. Rapid development is also taking place in the distribution throughout the Philippines of other lines of American-made goods in which we are particularly interested. From a merchandising point of view this development as it goes on makes the Philippines, with its 13,000,000 people, potentially one of the greatest assets which the producers and manufacturers of this country have. The premature granting of independence to the Filipinos would, therefore, close to American business interests a market in which they have spent much effort and money in developing to the distinct advantage of Filipinos and Americans alike. Moreover, in so far as the Filipino's ability to govern himself is concerned, it is the unanimous opinion of those who have worked and lived in the islands and who have done the most to inculcate American ideals into the natives that to cut them adrift and set them up as an independent nation now or in the near future would be to simply force responsibility on the Filipino which he is not economically prepared to assume and would, therefore, ultimately mean disaster in the guise of a generous act. These are only a few of the facts in connection with this question in which we have a vital interest. We trust you will bear them in mind and be guided accordingly when the question of granting Philippine independence comes to a vote in Congress. These are all letters and telegrams that have been received since the hearings started a week ago. The first witness this morning is Mr. Chester H. Gray, of the American Farm Bureau. Mr. Gray. STATEMENT OF CHESTER H. GRAY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. GRAY. My name is Chester H. Gray. I am the Washington representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am appearing here this morning in pursuance of a resolution which was 68 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS adopted by the American Farm Bureau Federation at its eleventh annual meeting in Chicago last December on the question of tariff. This resolution on tariff, as I say, is the basis of my appearing here this morning in regard to the question which is before this committee, and, although a portion of the resolution is not relative to the bills and resolutions now pending, I believe I had better read it all, as it leads up to the question that you have under discussion, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows: The present session of Congress is expected, at the earliest possible date, to enact the pending tariff bill and in so doing give to all agricultural commodities which directly or indirectly meet foreign comnpetition in our domestic markets, rates of duty which will as adequately protect the American farmers as the industrial producer has been and is now protected. We urge the Senate to continue its work of revising the agricultural rates upward and we insist that the tariff bill in conference between the two houses of Congress must emerge for final approval by President Hoover with the farm rates at that height which will enable the American farmer to maintain an American standard of living on the farm. It is recognized that while the law provides a tariff on certain commodities, prices are lower in the United States than in the Dominion of Canada. We demand an effective tariff on all agricultural commodities as advocated by President Hoover's message to the regular session of the Seventy-first Congress. It is an idle gesture to place even high rates of duty on farm commodities and then allow such commodities or substitutes therefor to enter our markets, duty free, from our so-called colonies or dependencies. Therefore, we favor immediate independence for such dependencies, but in the event that such independence can not be granted, we insist most strenuously that the products from these colonies or dependencies be subjected to the rates of duty which are applicable to similar products from foreign nations. The last portion of that resolution relates to the issue which is before this committee at the present time; that is, the question of what disposition or solution shall now or eventually be given to the commodities which compete with the farm commodities, such commodities coming from our foreign dependencies, or whatever we care to name these foreign islands. The CHAIRMAN. Do you call them foreign islands when they are under the American flag? Mr. GRAY. Some are under the American flag in a strict constitutional sense. The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of the actual physical sense. Mr. GRAY. They are under the American flag in the way of being protected by that flag, but not under the American flag constitutionally in all respects. The CHAIRMAN. Cuba is protected by the United States against foreign aggression by a treaty, but Cuba is not under the American flag as a foreign country. Surely the Philippine Islands are not a foreign country, even though they do not have prohibition. Mr. GRAY. I will not take up the prohibition question this morning. The CHAIRMAN. But, Mr. Gray, would your organization prefer the proposition of Senator Vandenberg for tariff autonomy for the Philippines, or do you believe that they should be granted not only tariff autonomy, but immediate independence? Mr. GRAY. The latter would be preferable to our people. According to the resolution which I read, and the discussion of the question that has been going on for the last year in Farm Bureau circles, it was very thoroughly considered. I read from the resolution of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 69 the last annual meeting, the eleventh annual meeting. Whether or not independence shall be granted immediately, or it shall be the mission of Congrgess at this time to outline a plain which in time will give them independence, is a question for Congress to decide. Answering your question specificaly, I believe-and my authority for so believing is the resolution which I have just read-that the average farm bureau member in the States from Maine to California would say "immediate." The CHAIRMAN. Immediate independence? Mr. GRAY. Immediate independence. But I am frank to say that the duty or the burden of settling that question, whether it be right now or whether to set up the machinery which will consummate it in the near future, is a question for the Congress to decide. I am speaking particularly with reference to the King bill this morning, that being the one which more nearly than the other two measures before your committee carries out the thought which the farm bureau people would like to put into practice. The King bill sets up machinery that in certain definite steps will accomplish this thing of independence. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your organization, as you are able to interpret its belief, thinks that it will be better for us to get away from the Philippines, in so far as looking after them is concerned, and in so far as our Army and Navy are concerned, and turn them loose for the sake of securing the economic benefits of tariff autonomy, rather than merely to secure the benefits of tariff autonomy and carry on what some people think is our moral obligation to look after the people? Mr. GRAY. No; I would not answer your question in the light of the first portion of it, because we do not wish in the farm circle that I represent, the American Farm Bureau Federation, to forget the moral responsibility which you mentioned in the second part of your question; but our approach to this is from three angles, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; first, from an historical point of view, to which I will refer later; secondly, from an economic point of view, which is the one most disputed by those who advocate and those who do not advocate independence; and, thirdly, from a humanitarian point of view. Do not understand that the farmers of America approach this question wholly from the economic point of view. They are not forgetting the historic point of view or the humanitarian point of view. The CHAIRMAN. Did your organization consider the proposal to have a conference called in Manila which should be composed onehalf of American citizens and one-half of representatives of the Philippine Legislature and of the Philippine Islands to study the problem from all its angles and present a solution which might, in their judgment, after considering the matter in the field, appear best? Mr. GRAY. Your question would relate, I presume, to the Senate resolution which you have introduced as being the most visible form in which that proposition has yet come up before the Congress? The CHAIRMAN. That is the concrete plan now before us. Mr. GRAY. That is one of the concrete plans before this committee now. 70 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS We have considered the Philippine question, I would answer the Senator, not only in relation to studying the proposition and reporting upon what shall be or what shall not be done about it, which is the gist of the resolution that you have introduced. We have studied it from the point of view of a definite approach to the independence question, which is the point that Senator King's bill is most devoted to. We have studied it also from the point of view of tariff autonomy, which is the gist of the measure by Senator Vandenberg. We are not averse to studying the question further, if the Congress of the United States now in session should on its own authority and responsibility say, through an adverse report of this committee or by a vote on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives, that independence is untimely at this time. Then the next step would be to take up and study what should be done. As to tariff autonomy, that is a proposition that we have advocated in one form or another, both before the Ways and Means Comanittee and the Finance Committee. Other farm organizations have advocated the same thing; that is, to make the rates of duty from the Philippine Islands carry the same burden as if the products came from any other country. We have stood for that. I have been bold enough, anticipating the resolution which I read to you, and anticipating it by several months, to say that if Congress in the bills now emerging for a new tariff law did not put those rates of duty on competitive products from the Philippine Islands, the next step for my farm organization-and I venture the thought for other farm organizations-would be to advocate complete independence. Referring still further to the question of autonomy, our people in the Farm Bureau have concluded that the question of tariff autonomy is not seemingly going to be put into the bill that is now going through the legislative grist. Therefore, my people said that which I thought they would say-the next thing is independence to get that autonomy. The CHAIRMAN. But has there been any actual proposal made to write into the tariff bill tariff autonomy for the Philippine Islands? Has not the proposal been one which you presented before the Finance Committee, to put a duty on Philippine products coming into this country? I do not remember in your proposal any amendment to the bill which would give the Philippine Islands the equal right to tax all of our products in a manner similar to the way in which they put a tariff on products coming from other countries, notably Japan. Mr. GRAY. No, sir. In my arguments before the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee I confined myself to the agricultural side of the proposition, and I did not advocate complete autonomy as it is now being presented before this committee; but I advocated autonomy to the extent that it was a factor in protection to American farm-grown crops. I did not get on the industrial side of autonomy. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that you advocated tariff autonomy of the Philippine Islands at all. You advocated putting a tariff on their products coming into this country. Tariff autonomy for INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 71 the Philippines need not necessarily affect their products coming into this country, but it would give them the right to be autonomous; in other words, to tax any products coming to them as they see fit. Naturally, the corollary to that would be the taxing of coconut oil and sugar. Mr. GRAY. And I would agree that the corollary would be what you have advocated, and I am confident enough, and I have enough appreciation of the thoroughness with which the Congress goes into these things, to believe that the Congress would not grant autonomy of tariff matters to the Philippines unless this corollary were carried along at the same time that autonomy was given. The CHAIRMAN. Should not that have been proposed in the amendment, in fairness? Mr. GRAY. Yes; frankly that should have been proposed in any advocacy of a complete solution of the tariff matter; but my knowledge did not go to that extent. And it does not extend to that degree at the present time, to advocate that full completion of autonomy which we are discussing now; but to secure the equivalent of autonomy by protecting the American markets against the importation of Philippine products would, from a farm point of view, be autonomy correlatively, while permitting the Philippines to tax our products going into their nation. Senator HAwES. Mr. Gray, may I ask you one or two questions? Mr. GRAY. Surely, Senator. Senator HAWES. I understand that your organization, in defending the farmers of America against competition, are asking for the independence of the Philippines, but that above and beyond that particular selfish motive, if I may put it that way, or protective motive, you also realize that there is a moral obligation and a promise made to these people to be carried out? Is that so? Mr. GRAY. That is so. Senator HAWES. Are you familiar with the debates on the Broussard amendment to put a tariff upon the products of the Philippines? Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. Does your memory extend to the fact that some five or six Senators, or possibly more, stated on the floor of the Senate that they would not favor action of that kind until the question of independence was presented to the Senate? Mr. GRAY. I remember that very well. Senator HAWES. And that when it was properly presented they would vote for independence? Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. Indicating at that time that there was a majority in the Senate in favor of independence, but on the straight issue of independence, disassociated with tariff matters? Mr. GRAY. I think you are relating the incidents on the floor of the Senate in their proper order. Yes; I remember all of that. The CHAIRMAN. You agree with what the Senator has so skillfully inserted into his question about a majority? Senator HAWES. Not skillfully, but I have inserted it just as it happened on the floor of the Senate; and neither you nor I could change the fact. The CHAIRMAN. I do not know on what you base your assurance of a majority. 72 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. I base it on the vote to put a tariff on Philippine imports; on the statements of Senators that were not prepared at that time to vote favorably on that proposition, because they wanted the question of independence determined first, and when that came up they intended to vote for independence. That is a matter that neither of us can change. It is a matter of record. The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is that the vote was quite sizably against the motion for independence; and yet enough Senators indicated their intention to vote for it to make a majority for independence. Senator HAWES. My recollection is that Senator Borah and Senator Johnson and a number of other Senators stated that they would vote against the Broussard amendment because they wanted to vote upon the straight question of independence first; and, having determined that, then to go into the economic question; and at the time it was freely predicted that there was a majority in the Senate in favor of independence, and that that question should be decided first. I assumed that possibly the representatives of the farm organizations had that in mind. Mr. GRAY. Frankly, on that question the approach to this whole question of the Philippine Islands by the American Farm Bureau Federation-and if this approach is different from that of other farm organizations, they will signify it by their proper appearance before this commiittee-was that the question of independence for the Philippines from a farm point of view might not be the question at issue for the Seventy-first Congress to grapple with, if the Congress would manifest an intention and desire properly to protect the American farm crops which met competition from the Philippines. That manifestation and desire not being evident down to date in any superlative decree, and in many cases no degree at all, the question of independence to the farm groups has become of more acute importance than it was when I first began to appear before the Ways and Means Committee, just about a year ago. Commenting upon what Senator Hawes has said, we seem in the farm groups to have desired at the beginning of this controversy, if I may so call it. not to precipitate a question of independence but merely to get recognition of a question of protection for an American group of citizens. That latter not being available, the question of independence comes up; and we do not approach it, as I said a while ago, from the economic point of view wholly, but from the historic and humanitarian points of view as well. Let me describe what I mean, and before I describe it comment just a bit on Senator Bingham's resolution, which, as I said a while ago, would be a project more attractive to the farm bureau people if it shall develop that the Congress, by adverse report of this committee or by a vote on the floor of the Senate, does not at this time desire independence. My comment about the resolution of the chairman is this: That it starts out with a premise which we can not approve. In stating that I do not mean to say that the later machinery for the chairman's resolution is not perfectly fine and workable, if we are not to have independence as proposed in Senator King's bill. The premise that I object to in Senator Bingham's resolution is that it states there has been no policy enunciated by the Federal INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Government in regard to independence in the Philippine Islands and that this commission is for the purpose of enunciating that policy. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gray, there was nothing said about a policy. Mr. GRAY. Will you read the second paragraph, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The second paragraph says: Whereas the question has constitutional as well as economic and political aspects. The first paragraph, I think, is the one to which you refer. It says: Whereas the question of the future status of the Philippine Islands has never been explicitly determined by the Congress of the United States. Mr. GRAY. Pardon-me. It was the first paragraph. Now, the historic atmosphere to which I have referred several times is our first approach to this question. I believe that the future status of the Philippine Islands has been determined by the Congress of the United States, and it was determined in the first and second clauses of the act No. 240, Sixty-fourth Congress, which says: Whereas it was never the intention of these peopleThe CHAIRMAN. You are reading the preamble and not the act now, Mr. Gray. Mr. GRAY. That is the rebuttal that I was expecting to get. The CHAIRMAN. But the preamble is not the law. Mr. GRAY. But I am frank enough to believe that whenever the Congress of the United States says a thing in a preamble it is practically as much of an indication of the congressional policy as if it were in section 1. The CHAIRMAN. That is not quite true, Mr. Gray, and that is why I objected to your statement that my resolution and the preamble to it made a misstatement with regard to policy. This preamble that you referred to is a clear indication of the policy of the Congress as it existed at that time, the Congress then being Democratic. However, the act does not provide for an explicit determination of the future status of the Philippine Islands; for instance, as to whether it should be completely independent without a protectorate, whether it should be independent with a protectorate, or whether it should be a coaling station and a naval base that would grant us the same privileges there that the English have at Gibraltar, or whether it should be an organized territory looking forward to a day when there should be a plebecite as to whether an organization was desired for complete independence. The policy laid down in the preamble is clear, but as to the future status it has never been explicitly determined and is not contained in the act itself. Senator KING. President Roosevelt upon several occasions, in interpreting the act to which Mr. Gray has just referred, said that it was a solemn promise that the Philippines should have independence, and he said that we should keep that promise and give them independence. He said that they were to us what Achilles's heel was to him. Moreover, in the matter of defense, he said we would be better off without them than with them, and he therefore favored independence for them. Certainly, the same view was taken by Senators and Con 74 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS gressmen when that bill was before them-that that was an explicit promise of independence for the Philippine Islands; not holding them as a Territory, not holding them in a colonial sense in any way, but that it was a promise that they should have independence in all that that word implies. Mr. GRAY. May I comment further in regard to answering Chairman Bingham. not in a controversial way, but in the way that we view it? The statement of principle relative to the status of the Philippine Islands, which I started to read a while ago and which I shall finish now, is as follows: Whereas it was never the intention of the people of the Unietd States in the incipiency of the war with Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; and Whereas it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein. All of which indicates to my mind, and I believe to the general mind of Congress as well as of the citizens, the thought that the future status of the Philippine Islands was to be independence, but, Senator Bingham, the method of getting that thing accomplished, the time in which that thing should be accomplished, I will agree with you most whole-heartedly, is not specified in these two paragraphs I have read, nor is it indicated. The question before the Congress is, then, how shall this future status of independence, which is clearly indicated in what I have just given you, be consummated; and, further, is this the time to do it? Those are the questions that the Congress must decide in its own good time and wisdom. Senator HAWES. Mr. Gray, that preamble that you have just read is the only declaration that Congress has ever made on the subject, and that declaration is very clear that it favored and promised independence to the Philippines as soon as they were ready to have it granted by Congress. That was some 32 years ago. The old generation has passed, and now Congress is being called upon again The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, Senator. Was that 32 years ago? Senator HAWES. May I finish my statement, if you please? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but I just wanted to be correct. If it was 32 years ago, I am not quite right. Senator HAWES. The only expression that Congress has made on this subject was for independence when the Philippines were ready for it; Congress spoke in that very strong and unequivocal language at that time. It is now called upon to determine whether the time has arrived for independence for the Philippines. In the meantime there has been no expression of Congress that I know of. That is why I was interested in finding out whether the farmers of America, in addition to their peculiar special interests, had also in mind this promise made by the American Government to the people of the Philippines. Mr. GRAY. We have in mind that promise, and in our method of interpreting it, even though it is not, as Senator Bingham calls to our attention, a part of the organic law, being, as it is, a part of the preamble-we, however, consider it as being a statement of national policy in regard to the future policy of the Philippines. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 75 Now, let us see, not quoting miscellaneously from every public official from whom we might quote, what interpretation has been placed upon that by the Presidents of the United States. I could quote from governors general; I could quote from Senators; I could quote from Members of the House; I could quote from the chairman of different committees; and I could find divers sentiments about the very thing we are discussing; but not to take too much of your time, and also to find what the Presidents of the United States since the Spanish-American War have thought about the Philippine Islands in regard to their future status, I shall confine myself merely to the references of the Presidents, none excepted, since the SpanishAmerican War. I find their statements falling under four heads in regard to the Philippine Islands. First, there is only one statement which indicates permanent retention, and that is by President McKinley in a letter to the then Secretary of War, dated in December, 1898. Let me quote: Finally, it should be the earnest and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines, by showing to them in every possible way that full measure of individual rights and liberties which is the heritage of free people, and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of benevolent assimilation substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule. His expression there, " benevolent assimilation," is the only approach on the part of a President of the United States to the idea of permanent retention; and President McKinley's expression, "benevolent assimilation," was considered, when it was first issued in this letter in 1898 to Mr. Taft, who was then Secretary of War, and was going to the Philippines to start a government there, as being an indication on the part of our people that we were permanently to retain the Philippines. However, in a month after this statement of President McKinley's was written it created such a storm of opinion pro and con that in his message to Congress, or in some other communication, he withdrew from this "benevolent assimilation " and put the burden of the solution upon Congress. May I state in conclusion that, so far as I know, of all presidential expressions this expression of President McKinley of "benevolent assimilation " is the only one that even indicates permanent retention. The CHAIRMAN. How much did we pay spain for the Philippine Islands. Mr. GRAY. $16,000,000, was it not? Senator HARRIS. $20,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the American people would have paid $20,000,000 for something that they knew they were going to give up in such a short time? Is that the way we do things? Mr. GRAY. Yes; in international matters. The CHAIRMAN. When we paid Russia over $7,000,000 for Alaska, did we have any intention of giving up that territory? Mr. GRAY. A different proposition. The CHAIRMAN. When we got the Louisiana Purchase from France for $15,000,000, did we have any intention of giving that up? 76 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Similarly, there is nothing in the debates with regard to the Philippines to show that we were just handing over that amount to Spain as a gift for territory we did not propose to keep. Senator HAWES. The answer to that, it seems to me, is apparent; that Congress, not speaking as one Senator but as a body, declared that they were in favor of independence of the Philippines, despite the $20,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. That was a different Congress and they had a different majority. They had a majority then that favored immediate independence; and, the Senator knows, in the beginning of the Spanish-American War, under Mr. Bryan, the Democratic Party took up the plea and made it the chief part of their creed, which was antiimperialism, that they were opposed to the keeping of the Philippines. But that doctrine did not seem to win the election. Senator HAWEs. Mr, Chairman, I hope that the chairman of this committee is not going to interject the question of Democratic or Republican policies into the independence of 10,000,000 people. I do not think it has anything to do with it. I assume that the chairman possibly made the statement thinking that he is influencing some votes in that way, but I think it is a very unfortunate observation. Certainly, it has no control over my mind as a Democrat what Mr. Gray has said, or somebody else has said, and I assume that the Congress is to pass upon this question on its merits without regard to politics. I just assume that it will do that. The CHAIRMAN. It is not the chairman's fault that it has been brought into politics. The Domcratic Party has put it in its platform repeatedly. The Republican Party has kept it out of politics believing that it properly belongs out of politics. Senator HAWEs. Because the Democratic Party or some member of it has favored independence, is the chairman of this committee going to oppose independence on that ground? The CHAIRMAN. The Republican Party has taken the position repeatedly that it ought to be kept out of politics, but I was referring to the historic fact that the Congress which paid $20,000,000 for the Philippines was a Congress with a Republican majority and the Congress which passed this Jones Act with the preamble on which so much stress is being laid was a Democratic Congress, and it was entirely in accordance with their platforms that they should do so. I am not finding any fault or trying to make any political capital out of it whatever; I am merely calling attention to the historic reason for the preamble in the Jones Act. Senator HAWES. So far the chairman is opposed to independence because there is $20,000.000 involved-we pay that much for a bridge across the Potomac River these days-and that the Democratic Party favors independence. Are you opposed to it on any other grounds than those? Senator VANDENBERG. Who is the witness this morning? Senator HAWES. The witness is a representative of the Farm Bureau. I presumed to ask him some questions, Mr. Chairman, when the interrogatories were leading in one direction, in the political field; whether a preamble expresses the opinion of Congress, or does not express the opinion of Congress. I did not ask the witness any INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 77 questions that did not relate to farm facts unless those points were developed by the chairman. Senator METCALF. I should like to ask the witness a question. For instance, to-day I have a letter from manufacturers saying that they are doing a very large business with the Philippines. Now, here you are representing the farmers. You would rather like to have the tariff or independence so as not to interfere with your trade. The manufacturers say they hope they can continue with quite a large trade with the Philippines. Do you know anything about the amount of trade that is being done with the Philippines? MAr. GRAY. I believe that I can answer your question right now, Senator Metcalf, if you want it answered at this time. Senator METCALF. I was only trying to get both sides. Mr. GRAY. I will say, in a general way, that 80 per cent of the imports that come to us from the Philippines are of an agricultural nature, and approximately the same percentage of exports which go from us to the Philippines are of an industrial nature. 'Understand that those figures are not statistically but are approximately correct. Wholly from a self-interested point of view vou could see very easily that a manufacturer might have a different approach to this question than a farmer would have, but if you will take into consideration the historic and the humanitarian points of view you might find a common meeting ground in which the self-interest of industry and agriculture will not be wholly dominant factors, but these two things, history and humanitarianism, may have proper weight. My answer to your question, then, would be that I am not surprised that industry in America wants the Philippines retained under the present set-up —free trade. Because it is to the advantage of these interests that they shall have it so, and will cumulatively be of more advantage as we go on and cumulatively will be of more disadvantage to agriculture as the years go on. The CHAIRMAN. IS it not true, though, that the Philippines are constantly increasing their consumption of American farm products, particularly of wheat and wheat flour? Mr. GRAY. Yes; and more hastily are they multiplying their imports into our markets of things which compete with our own domestic market. So, although we do not deny that the Philippines are in a meager way furnishing a market for two or three farm commodities, in a muchi more magnified way they are supplying products that break down, compete against, and in some cases destroy the profit upon American farm enterprises. So we can not measure one of those things against the other, except disadvantageously to our agricultural exports. The CHAIRMAN. Well, so far as your argument is an economic one, it is just as reascnable as the argument of the exporters and the manufacturers, that the status quo should not be disturbed so as not to interfere with their market, particularly with the market for textiles? Mr. GRAY. I would assume that the answer to your question would be yes; that the industrial people, wholly from a selfish point of view, have as much reason to say that the status quo should ( ontinue as we in agriculture would have to say that it should be changed; but we are not approaching it wholly from a selfish point of view. 92109-30-PT 1 6 78 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that the manufacturers and the business men, particularly of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce of New York City, who have been to the Philippines many times, and perhaps know as much about conditions there as do the members of the American Farm Bureau, would claim that their views are not purely selfish, as you would seem to imply. They would claim that we have a duty to the Philippines to protect them against their enemies, and to stay there long enough fully to develop their economic and their political prosperity. I have heard them claim, also, in regard to some of the problems in the Philippines, notably that connected with nonChristian people, that it would be extremely unfair to turn them over to their natural enemies-I say " natural enemies " because they were enemies for many generations in connection with the difference between the Moros and the Philippine people in the islands to the north-they would claim that it would be extremely unfair and immoral to leave that situation to work itself out. In other words, is it not perfectly fair to say that both the exporters and the manufacturers who are opposed to Philippine independence on economic grounds, also have the belief that it is unwise from moral and humanitarian grounds, just as your organization, which was primarily interested in it during the past year for economic reasons, believes that its position is taken equally on moral and humanitarian grounds? Is not that a fair statement? Mr. GRAY. I presume that those people who favor retention of the Philippines will state with sincerity on their part that they are trying to subserve the best interests of the Philippines. and are therefor complying with what they consider to be a moral obligation. I presume that is true; they will advance that argument as much as we will; and. in fact. I am frank to state that we are not using our argument on the moral side of this or the humanitarian side as a subterfuge or as a cloak to put us in a position of being holier than thou. The CHAIRMAN. I did not state that at all. Mr. GRAY. You have not made that accusation, but the main approach we have to it is the economic approach, and that is the main approach of our groups to this question; but with that we have the historic and the moral or the humanitarian approach. The CHAIRnA-N. I did not mean to imply that any one was using his business interest as a blanket or cloak to cover his selfish interest in his beliefs, and I did not want to imply-and it seemed to me that your words did imply-that the business interests that were opposed to independence were so opposed purely for selfish reasons, and had not given the matter any other consideration, because I feel sure that they have, and many of them are just as conscientious in their belief against independence on other than economic grounds as you are in your belief in favor of independence. Mr. GRAY. I think that the chairman misinterpreted what I said in answer to Senator Metcalf's question. I said from a self-interest point of view one side had an argument and that the other side had a counterargumnent, but if we would consider the two factors there might be a common ground; and in that statement I do not think I intimated that the industrial group was using a false approach to this any more than the agricultural group, or vice versa. Senator HAWES. Just a minute, Mr. Gray. You and the chairman seem to be assuming that the industrial group are opposed to INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 79 independence and opposed to this movement. We have not heard from them yet. I happen to know that part of the industrial group are favoring independence and a change. So that there is unity on the part of the farm and labor people, and perhaps some division on the part of industry; but industry is not united by any means in opposition to independence, as will be portrayed before this committee if they are given an opportunity to be heard. The CHAIRMAN. They will be given plenty of opportunity to be heard. I do not think the Senator from Missouri was present when I read from the telegrams from Cleveland, New York, Chicago, and other places, and referred to all the letters and telegrams which have been received since the last hearing from industry and business, all opposed to independence. Proceed, Mr. Gray, if you please. Mr. GRAY. I have already remarked, in connection with the historical side of this proposition, that one President, former President McKinley, had, by using the term "benevolent assimulation" intimated, if not directly stated, that the Philippines were to be permanently retained. Going through the records of the other Presidents we find only one statement in which immediate independence of the Philippines is to be granted. That statement is included in the message of President Wilson of December, 1920j to the Congress, and is as follows: We respectfully submit that this condition precedent having been fulfilled (the establishment and maintenance of a stable government) it is now our liberty and our duty to keep our promise to the people of those islands by granting them the independence which they so honorably covet. So far as I have been able to search through the records of statements of the Presidents since the Spanish-American War, that is the only direct and unequivocal statement in favor of independence at the time the message was written; and the one by President McKinley, as I have said, is the only one which intimates or suggests. that they are to be permanently retained. The third impression which I gain from studying the presidential messages is that there is a general indication that the Philippines were not ready for independence at the dates the various messages were written. As I have stated to the chairman, that is a question at the present time for Congress to decide, as to whether the time ha's come to grant independence to the Philippines. May I quote from President McKinley on that phase of it? The CHAIRMAN. Before you start that quotation, Mr. Gray, may I suggest this thought for such comment as you may care to make? As you say, the Congress is asked to determine whether we should grant independence to the Philippines immediately, as provided for under the bill introduced by Senator King. Mr. GRAY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. As you know, there are very few members of the Senate of the United States who have ever visited the Philippine Islands, and of those who have been there, only two or three have spent more than four or five days. A bill has been before the Congress for some time providing for a biennial board of visitors to go out there from the Congress and listen to such witnesses as might come before them in the Philippine Islands who are unable to afford the expense of coming to Washington. The passage of this bill has 80 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS been prevented from time to time by those who favor immediate independence. In view of the very great distance between Manila and Washington, and in view of the fact that organizations which are favoring independence in the Philippines have been able to secure the funds to have their representatives come here and plead for independence, where organizations opposed to independence in the Philippines for one reason or another have been unable to send representatives here, and individuals opposing it, as well as individuals favoring it, have not felt like incurring the great expense necessary to come here and express their views and give statements with regard to either why they were opposed to independence, or what form of independence they desire, do you not think it would be the part of good legislation for us to have a committee or a conference or a commission to take testimony in the Philippine Islands, as provided for in Senate Joint Resolution 118, now before us, before asking the Congress to determine this other question? Mr. GRAY. I hardly think that would be necessary, Senator Bingham, for the reason that the American people, as well as the Members of the Congress, have studied this thing for a great number of years-ever since the Spanish-American War, in fact-and, holding, as I believe, an objective of ultimate independence, the only question before the Congress is, not to decide about the final status-that is, ultimate independence-but the question of when to do it. The question of when to do it could be interminably postponed, I believe, if conferences and hearings and visitations were provided for, which would keep the question open all the time. What I mean to say is that we might just as well close the question without too much further delay, and I believe Senator King's bill does not pull the curtain down absolutely and definitely, because the first provision in that bill, if it is adopted by the Congress, provides for delegates to a constitutional convention. If the people in the Philippine Islands who have not been heard on this-if there are such-either pro or con, do not want this thing to go into operation, such people will be elected to that constitutional convention as will throttle it right there. So there is a referendum of the Philippine people provided in the first section of Senator King's bill, to my mind. The CHAIRMAN. That merely passes the buck from us to them. Virtually it says: " We do not know what is good for you, but you probably know yourselves, and we will just turn it over to you to decide what form of free and independent government you will have." Mr. GRAY. Perhaps that is the wise thing, and perhaps that is the humanitarian thing to do, to let them decide; that is, to let their qualified electors, under their own present laws, which electors vote only by virtue of educational and property rights, as I understand it, decide whether this machinery provided for in Senator King's bill will go any further than the setting up of a constitutional convention. If they do not want this thing to happen, there is where they will do their stopping, Mr. Chairman. So I will answer your question by saying that we are not averse to a full study of any proposition. In fact, may I say that the American Farm Bureau Federation seldom comes to a decision on any great question in less than two years of study. This question of independence, as I have intimated INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 81 first in this hearing this morning, comes to us as a secondary. solution of a primal condition which we wanted solved by adequate rates of duty on Philippine products. That not being intimated by the bills which are thus far passing through Congress, our next alternative is independence. I hardly believe that the idea of having visitations pro and con from here to the Philippines and from the Philippines here would be any more effective than and hardly as effective as the first provision in Senator King's bill, which will absolutely promote independence or will throttle independence by decision of the electors of the Philippine Islands. Senator HARRIS. Mr. Gray, there is no question about the large percentage of Filipinos wanting independence. Mr. GRAY. That is my opinion, Senator. Senator HARRIS. Has anybody argued the other side of it? Mr. GRAY. Perhaps there might be. Senator Bingham says that there are people in the Philippines who do not desire independence, who have not yet had an opportunity to be heard in WVashington on account of the cost of getting here. I am not making a comparison here for any unworthy purpose at all, but we know that in the effort to get independence of our own Government from our parent nation, England, back in 1776 and prior to 1776, there were great groups of people in the United States, minority groups, which did not want independence. But the majority of our people went along and fought for independence and got it. Even when independence was secured, after six or eight years of effort, there were still groups in the United States which did not desire independence, and they did not desire it, largely, Senator Harris, for the reason that all colonies do not desire to get away from the mother country, on account of commercial ties. It was the commercial tie which promoted the so-called Tory movement in our United States back in 1776. and make them advocate the continuance of connection with the mother country. Senator HARRIS. What I was thinking about was this: The chairman has been to the Philippines, and anyone else who has been there knows that the very great majority of those people want their independence. I see no use in going through any form about it. If we are going to give it to them, let us give it to them without calling a constitutional convention. Mr. GRAY. I would agree with you on that absolutely. I have answered the chairman by saying that it looks as though the Congress and the people of the United States have studied this question for 30 years, approximately, and although we have no present desire to urge a decision which will be disastrous either to ourselves or the Philippines, it does not seem opportune to set up instrumentalities for the prime purpose of studying to see what is next to be done. Senator King's bill provides the steps for doing a certain thing, the first step of which, if acted upon unfavorably by the Philippine electors, will militate against any of the rest of his bill going into effect. Senator HARRIS. But there is no likelihood of doing that. I never found a dozen people over there opposed to this. 82 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. GRAY. I am frank to say that I have never visited the Philippines, and I can not speak from first-hand investigation or knowledge. The CHAIRMAN. I have in my hand a cable from the Philippines, signed by Senor Alemany, president, reading as follows: MANILA, January 11, 1930. Senator BINGHAM, Washington, D. C. Solidaridad Filipina Civic Association representing militant Filip'no public opinion of accredited and loyal groups strongly indorses your m;xed commission provided all members are appointed by President Hoover. I do not know how many people belong to that association. Even if there are only a few, it indicates that there are people willing to pay for a cable asking for a commission to study the question, instead of calling a constitutional convention immediately to draft a constitution for a free and independent government, as provided in Senator King's bill. Before you go on, Mr. Gray, I wanted to ask a question which I started to ask a while ago. Your organization did not appear at either of the political conventions held in 1928 asking for a resolution favoring independence, did it? Mr. GRAY. We appeared at both conventions by delegates appointed by our board of directors. Two went to Kansas City and two went to Houston, but we made no specific recommendation to the resolutions committee of the Demooratic or the Republican Parties in relation to the independence question. Our resolutions referred to the tariff question. That was our approach to the solution of this problem at that time. The CHAIRMAN. If it were possible for you to get a solution of the tariff question which would meet your needs, the needs of the sugar-beet farmers for more adequate protection and less competition from Philippine sugar, and the needs of others for protection against the competition of free coconut oil from the Philippines, would not that answer your requirements? Mr. GRAY. It would have answered them two months ago. I doubt if it would now. To months ago it would have headed off any such resolution as I first put in the record this morning. I doubt if it would now. The CHAIRMTAN. If you could have secured it last summer, when you appeared before the committee, you would not be here asking for Philippine independence. Mr. GRAY. I think that is true. May I say, further, that if the Ways and Means Committee, and if the Finance Committee, on whom the principal burden and responsibility lies, had given us the reported bills that we had every reason to expect, I doubt whether the annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation would have adopted a resolution along the lines of independence, such as we are now advocating. Senator HAWES. But, Mr. Gray, you stated earlier this morning that, entirely aside from the economic question, or any selfish interest that your organization might have, your organization, on moral grounds, and having the historical background of this question in mind, also favored independence. Is that correct? Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. That is tirue. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 83 Which of these three factors that I am endeavoring to bring to the attention of the committee is the predominant one in any group, farm group, industrial, or what not, is always a debatable question. I presume, in the farm group, the economic factor is the one of greatest importance. However, the historic and the moral factors are not forgotten. Reading President McKinley's message, then, relative to the general impression which I have of presidential messages, it has been indicated several times that the Filipinos were not ready for independence at the time the particular message was written. Let me read: It does not seem desirable that I should recommend at this time a specific and final form of government for these islands. That is from President McKinley's message to Congress in December, 1899. In his message to Congress we find him also saying. in December, 1900, a year later: While seeking to impress upon you that the grave responsibility of the future government of those islands rests with the Congress of the United States, I abstained from recommending at that time — in his message of a former yeara specific and final form of government for the territory actually held by the United States forces. The CHAIRMAN. I have often read those things, and I have wondered, in connection with other remarks by President McKinley about self-government for the Philippines and a form of government for the territory now held by the United States, whether he had in. view independence or whether he had in view what form of government we were going to use over these new possessions of ourswhether it was going to be territorial, as in the case of Alaska, or whether we were going to set up something entirely new which we had never done in the case of any of our purchases or possessions. Is not that interpretation a perfectly proper one in view of his remarks? Mr. GRAY. I think President McKinley never did evolve-if I may say it kindly of him-a definite plan in his mind about what should be done with the Philippines. First he said "benevolent assimulation." Then, in a month or thereabouts he said this thing which I have read, putting the whole burden on the Congress, putting the responsibility on Congress, and saying that Congress should decide the final form of government; thereby, not " passing the buck "-because I would not accuse a President of doing that-but he put the burden where it properly belongs, on the Congress of the United States. I would say further, that whether President McKinley, at the termination of his office, when he was shot and died subsequently thereto, had in his mind the exact form in which the Philippines should be disposed of finally-that is, by complete independence, or a territorial form of government, or protectorate, or what not-is not known; but I do not think it was formulated in his mind. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any evidence which would lead you to believe that he had in his mind independence for the Philippines; that is, entire independence from the United States.? 84 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. GRAY. No; I can not say that he had independence in mind, but I do say that he put the burden'of settling that question on Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Was that the burden of settling that question, or settling the form of government we are going to provide for there? Mr. GRAY. The general question of the Philippine Islands, as I understand his messages. Senator KING. Senator Bingham, will you pardon me? May I call your attention to the fact that the President stated that forcible annexation was not to be thought of; that that was criminal aggression. Obviously, the meaning of that statement was that if the Philippines did not want to be annexed to the United States it would be a policy of criminal aggression to compel them to submit to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United States. The CHAIRANx. Did he ever say that about Porto Rico, which was forcibly annexed without the Porto Ricans being consulted? Senator KING. I do not recall his having Inade that statement about Porto Rico, but he said that with respect to the Philippine Islands. Mr. GRAY. Continuing further along the line of presidential thoughts upon whether or not the Philippines were ready for independence at the time he was President, we find some very strong statements from President Roosevelt. I quote from him: At present they are utterly incapable of existing in independence at all or building up a civilization of their own. I firmly believe that we can help them to rise higher and higher in the scale of civilization and of capacity for self-government, and I most earnestly hope that in the end they will be able to stand, if not entirely, yet in some such relation to the United States as Cuba now stands. Senator HARRIs. Whose statement is that? Mr. GRAY. President Roosevelt's, in a message to Congress in 1904. We find him saying later, in his message to Congress in January, 1908: They have yet a long way to travel before they will be fit for complete selfgovernment, and for deciding, as it will then be their duty to do, whether this self-government shall be accompanied by complete independence. It will probably be a generationUnderstand, this was written in 1908 -it may even be longer, before this point is reached; but it is most gratifying that such substantial progress toward this as a goal has already been accomplished. We desire that it be reached at as early a date as possible for the sake of the Filipinos and for our own sake, but improperly to endeavor to hurry the time will probably mean that the goal will not be attained at all. That signifies, as I have already quoted from President Roosevelt, that he thought, in 1904 and 1908, that the Philippines wete not ready for independence, and they had a long way to go. It also states very unequivocally his impression that the goal to which we were all aiming was independence. Senator KING. And it might be reached in a generation. Mr. GRAY. And it might be reached in a generation. As I have said three or four times already, whether the time has come now to do this thing, and accomplish the goal which President Roosevelt speaks of, and which the act of the Sixty-fourth Congress suggested INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 85 in its preamble was to be the desired end, is a question for Congress to settle; and I think it might just as well be settled in the Seventyfirst Congress. Senator HAwES. Mr. Gray, a generation has passed since that statement of President Roosevelt. Mr. GRAY. Just about a generation. The CHAIRMAN. A very short one. I never heard 22 years referred to as a generation before. Is not the wish father to the thought? Senator HAWES. It is so close that I do not think we should split on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we had better wait eight years until the generation is finished. We might lose out in that time. Senator HAWES. I am quite confident that the chairman does not want independence for the Philippines in eight years or any other time, as has been indicated here this morning. The CHAIRMAN. The views of the chairman have been expressed in the resolution which he introduced. Senator KING. Have you the last utterances of President Roosevelt, in 1917 and 1918? Mr. GRAY. After he ceased to be President? Senator KING. Yes. Mr. GRAY. I am not quoting from those. Senator HARRIS. Have you any statement from him, Senator King? Senator KING. Oh, yes. He wrote to the Kansas City Star and to the Outlook, of which he was editor, articles in which he distinctly stated that a solemn promise had been made for independence and that they should have it. The thought was that we would be guilty of the betrayal of a promise if we did not give it to them. They will be put into the record before the hearing is over. Mr. GRAY. President Taft also-although at the time of writing this he was not President, but later became President-in an address when Secretary of War at the inauguration of the Philippine assembly in October, 1907, made a statement which I shall quote. You will remember that these quotations bear upon the question that the Philippine Islands were not ready for independence at the time these statements were made: How long this process of political preparation of the Philippine people is likely to be is a question which no one can certainly answer. When I was in the islands the last time I ventured the opinion that it would take considerably longer than a generation. I have not changed my view upon this point, but the issue is one upon which opinions differ. * * * As I premised, however, this is a question for settlement by the Congress of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gray, when was he there the last time? When was this address, with reference to the time when he was there last? Mr. GRAY. That was the year prior to 1906, when he was first sent over on some mission. Senator KING. Mr. Commissioner, when was President Taft there last? Commissioner GJEVARA. 1906 or 1907. He went to the Philippine Islands to inaugurate the Philippine assembly. The CHAIRMAN. In other words; in 1907, Mr. Taft, who had been governor general for some time, looking the situation.over there, believed that it would take considerably longer than a generation. 86 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. GRAY. He so stated in the statement I have just read. The CHAIRMAN. Before they were ready for independence. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Just to bring this to the attention of the committee again, you will note that I am making an effort to group under four heads the pertinent statements of the Presidents since the Spanish-American War relative to this question of the Philippine Islands. I have grouped them, for purposes of review. as follows: Only one statement which indicated permanent retention. Only one statement which indicated immediate independence. A general indication that the Philippines were not ready for independence at the time of the various statements. A general approval of eventual independence. These last are the most extensive of any quotations. Let me read from President McKinley: It is also my wish and expectation that the commissioners may be received in a manner due to the honor and authorized representatives of the American Republic. duly c)mlmissioned on account of their knowledge, skill, and integrity as bearers of the good will, protection, and the richest blessings of a liberating rather than a conquering' nation. That is from a letter of President McKinley to the then Secretary of War, in January, 1899. We find him also saying: Forcible annexation can not be thought of; that, according to the American code of morals, is criminal aggression. This is a statement at the beginning of the Spanish-American War by President McKinley. We find him also saying: We shall continue as we have begun * * * to make these people * * * feel that it is their liberty and not our power * * * we are seeking to enhance. That is from the message to Congress in December, 1899. We find President Roosevelt saying: We hope to do for them what has never before been done for any people of the Tropics-to make them fit for self-government after the fashion of the really free nations. * * * We are extremely anxious that the natives shall show the power of governing themselves. We are anxious first for their sakes and next because it relieves us of a great burden. There need not be the slightest fear of our not continuing to give them all the liberty for which they are fit. Then, in the message from President Roosevelt to Congress in December, 1901, we find him also saying: If they are safeguarded against oppression, and if their real wants, material and spiritual, are studied intelligently and in a spirit of friendly sympathy, much more good will be done them than by any effort to give them political power. though this effort may in its own proper time and place be proper enough. That is a commnunication of President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on December, 1904, that at the proper time the Filipinos should be given their proper political power. We find President Roosevelt also saying: We are constantly increasing the measure of liberty accorded the islanders: and next spring * * * we shall take a great stride forward in testing their capacity for self-government by summoning the first Filipino legislative assembly; and the way in which they stand this test will largely determine whether the self-government thus granted will be increased or decreased. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 87 In this message to Congress in 1906 we find him giving general approval of eventual independence. I hope and believe that these steps-setting up the Philippine Legislative Assembly-mark the beginnings of a course which will continue till the Filipinos become fit to decide for themselves whether they desire to be an independent nation. That is from the special message to Congress in January, 1908. In that connection Senator King's bill lets them decide for themselves whether they are going to be an independent nation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gray, in connection with that statement of yours that it lets the Filipinos decide for themselves whether they are going to be an independent nation or not, actually that is not provided for in the b ll. It provide: for the election of an assembly to formulate and draft a constitution for a free and independent government. They are not asked to vote as to whether they want to be free or not, They are asked to vote for an assembly which will formulate and draft a constitution for a free and independent government. Letting that stand for the moment, do you think that when it has been testified here by representatives of the Philippine Islands that there are 13,000,000 people in the Philippine Islands, and it has also been testified that only a little more than 1,000,000 of them vote, which is 8 per cent of the population, that gives us any assurance, in the first place, that they have developed to the point where they can be intrusted with governing themselves, when only 8 per cent of them are voters; and, in the second place, is there any assurance that that 8 per cent who vote for the members of this convention actually represent the wishes of a majority of the people; or, if they do represent the wishes of the majority, whether the minority, which has no voice at all in voting, will be adequately represented in any such convention? Mr. GRAY. If I could grant the complete accuracy of your premise, Senator, I would have to answer your question in the negative. The CHAIRMAN. Those facts are quoted from the testimony of the Philippine commissioners, who stated that there were 13,000,000 people, and a little more than 1,000,000 of them voted. Mr. GRAY. But if you will take 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 people and divide that number by what is considered statistically as being the number in a family, you get the number of voters out of a population of 12,000,000 down to about two and one-half million. If 1,000,000 of those vote, you have about 33 per cent of the people voting, or 33 per cent of those who would, be qualified to vote on our own measures in America. So, I would raise the 8 per cent to 331/3 per cent at the start. In other words, I can not grant your premise. Therefore I can not answer your question as I would otherwise. The CHAIRMAN. On account of the educational qualifications in the Philippine Islands, which are not unduly hard, but are very respectable, and on account of their not having chosen to grant the vote to women in the Philippine Islands, it is quite obvious that only a small percentage of the population are at present voting, or likely to be inclined to vote. Furthermore, there are a large number of children in some of the islands that have no opportunities for schooling due to the poverty of the localities in which they live. As one 88 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS goes through, for instance, the island of Cebu, one sees hundreds of children who are not attending school, and so will never be able to become voters. Do vou not think it would be wiser to wait until a larger percentage of the 13,000,000 people are actually recognized as citizens by the Filipinos themselves? Mr. GRAY. I do not think it would be necessary. I would confess, Senator Bingham, that the educational and the property requirements for the electors in the Philippine Islands are not quite in accord with what we in the United States would desire; but under the strides of educational and other advancements that they are making there, in time perhaps they will eliminate those qualifications as education becomes more prevalent. So, I would say, as I understand the situation in the Philippines, that the 1,000,000 people who are now qualified to vote constitute a very accurate cross section of the inhabitants of that island, to the extent of about 331/3 per cent of what will ultimately be the qualified voters of the islands if the population should stay at 12,000,000 or 13,000.000, as at the present time. Senator HAwES. I would like to interrupt you with a question at this time, before we get away from that. Mr. GRAY. May I say this. before that question comes, in a trivial way? I suppose it is true that there are localities in the Philippine Islands where education is at a pretty low ebb, but we read last summer about a portion of the United States of Americanot over a pleasant automobile trip from the seat of the Federal Government-where education was at a very low ebb, out near President Hoover's Rapidan headquarters. Still, one of the boys out there sold him a possum for $5. So, he is a pretty good boy after all, without education. Senator HAWES. You heard the testimony of the speaker of the Philippine Congress, in which he stated that there were 1,000.000 voters; and that women did not vote. If they were permitted to vote, it is a reasonable assumption that the number of voters would be immediately doubled under their classification. The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think we had better wait until they do vote? Senator HAWES. You are asking questions assuming certain things in your questions, Mr. Chairman. I think we could reasonably assume that the voting population would be doubled if women were given the right to vote. Mr. GRAY. I should think so. Senator HAWES. So that bit would increase that percentage, then, 100 per cent if they were given that right. Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, first may I apologize for not having been here at the previous hearings on this subject, in which I am deeply interested. I give you as my excuse the fact that I have been organizing the Commerce Committee, and it has taken practically all my time until to-day. Secondly, may I call your attention to the fact that in this bill, as I observe it, not only will the electorate provide for a constitution, but they may vote for or against any proposition separately submitted, so that they would have the opportunity to express themselves if we desired to take a referendum upon the particular subject. But you will pardon me if I am ignorant of your testimony in some degree, Mr. Gray. May I summarize, for a moment, the view INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 89 that I take, as I have listened to you here, and see whether or not I am correct. Appearing, as you do, for the farm organizations, you favor the bill. Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. You favor the bill, first, from the standpoint of the economic conditions that are presented, particularly in respect to the tariff. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. Secondly, upon the altruistic and humanitarian view; and thirdly, because of the implied promise in the Jones Act. Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Will you tell me, please, if the economic question in respect to the tariff had not occurred, and if it had not been a matter deeply concerning the farm organizations, whether or not you would have been here at all? Mr. GRAY. I doubt if we would have been. Senator JOHNSON. Now, assume that independence were granted to the Philippines. Would you not wish immediately that such legislation should be adopted by the Congress as would protect you in the economic situation that has induced your appearance here? Mr. GRAY. That would seemingly follow as a necessary corollary, but may I be more explicit than that, Senator Johnson, and members of the Committee? If, pursuant to Senator King's bill, the granting of independence required a period of time so that the economic severance which the Philippine Islands will be called upon to make from the United States following independence will not be so severe, speaking for one large section of organized agriculture, we would be willing that there be some sort of a moratorium, or continuance of the entry of their products into our markets for three or four years, or something like that, so that the Philippine people would have, at least, what we might consider a measurable time to adjust themselves to their new political status. I am just offering that as a suggestion. We do not approach this question entirely from the immediate economic point of view, but are willing to let the thing be solved in the course of years, so that it will not thrust any undue burden on the Philippine people. Senator JOHNSON. But whether it was solved or not, your ultimate consummation would be the enactment of laws that would protect you in relation to the tariff matters in which you are interested to-day. Mr. GRAY. That would be the ultimate goal on our part. Senator JOHNSON. And if that were never to be accomplished, and if Philippine independence forever precluded that, your view would be different, would it not? Mr. GRAY. Yes; to a certain extent. It would be modified. Senator JOHNSON. That is all I desire to ask. Senator KING. I do not quite understand that last hypothesis, Senator. Senator JOHNSON. The hypothesis is this, Senator. Of course, you can understand what an appeal the independence of the people has to me. Senator KING. Certainly. 90 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator JOHNSON. But I do not want to put independence upon the ground that it is accorded in order that we may subsequently choke the people to death economically. Senator KING. You want to put it upon the ground that. they are entitled to it. Senator JOHNSON. Absolutely. And if they are entitled to it, I want to accord it to them. But I do not want to accord it with any understanding with farm organizations or anybody else that subsequently we are going to enact a barrier that will destroy them economically. These are tentative things that. I say to you, from an interest in the subject. May I say to Mr. Gray, too, that we have just had before a subcommittee of the Commerce Committee a matter into which we have gone thoroughly, with the testimony of the gentleman who represent the Philippines in the Congress, the Secretary of State, and the other officers of the Government. That is the question whether the coastwise shipping laws shall be made applicable to the Philippines. There is a contrariety of opinion in respect to the matter. you know. Some people in the far West are most anxious to make those laws applicable, upon the very ground, in reality, upon which you base your view in regard to independence. The representatives of the Philippines, the Secretary of State, and the like, strongly oppose it because of the fact that it is thought that those laws, if applicable to the Philippines, would do them incalculable. damage. The Commerce Committee has been dealing with that subject, and rather elaborately dealing with it. Ultimately-within a very brief period, indeed-we expect to make our report in reference to the matter. That is why I was pursuing the economic side of this with you, Mr. Gray, if you will excuse me for doing so. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to come back, for a moment, to the question of the number of voters. Mr. Gray. I find, in the statistical bulletin of the Philippine Islands for 1928, published in Manila in 1929, a statement regarding the number of registered voters and the percentage of votes cast; the estimated number of males of voting age, which I think will be interesting, since you are inclined to question my figures a little, and the premise upon which they are based. I myself had no accurate figures before me at the time. This is a statistical bulletin which, apparently, is put out by the Hon. Filemon Perez, secretary of commerce and communications, and Fidel A. Reyes, director bureau of commerce and industry. This states that in the election of 1928 there were 1,165,219 registered voters; that there were 942,404 votes cast; that, subject to some corrections, it was estimated that there were 2,596,400 males of voting age. Let us take the nearest large figure, 2,600,000, or you can say 2,500,000. It is actually 2,596,400. If there were probably as many females of voting age as males, which seems a fair estimate, that would make somewhere between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 persons of voting age, of whom 942,000 voted in the last election; or, if one counts all the registered voters, it is something less than 23 per cent. The point I was endeavoring to make was to raise the question as to whether, in view of the small number of registered voters compared to the total number of adults, both male and female, it was not wise to postpone the consideration of independence by the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 91 voters or to postpone the consideration of granting immediate independence until the Philippines had developed to such a point that the number of registered voters was very much nearer the number of persons of adult age who would in this country be able to be registered as voters. Senator HAWES. Mr. Gray, do you qualify as an expert on constitutional questions and population figures of the Philippines, speaking for the farm organizations of the United States? Mr. GRAY. Senator Hawes, I do not qualify as an expert on anything. I merely represent, in the best way that I can, the consensus of opinion of the membership of the American Farm Bureau Federation. No; I am not an expert on constitutional law. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gray stated that he had been studying this question for a great many years, and his organization had been studying it. He quoted from Presidents who stated that we ought to wait until such time as the Filipinos had given evidence of qualification for self-government and independence. I asked him, as a student of the question, whether he thought the limited number of registered voters showed that that time had arrived. Senator HAWES. I think the witness has been trying for nearly an hour to show the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, which had their influence on the Farm Bureau's position, and he has not been permitted to complete that statement yet. He has been diverted into matters of population and constitutional law. Senator JOHNSON. Some statistician has said, you know, that less that 5 per cent of our own electorate govern us. I think he is in error. His estimate is too high. [Laughter.] Senator KING. May I say, with the permission of the chairman, that in an investigation conducted by the Reed committee some time ago the evidence showed that in one of the largest States in the United States, in a presidential election, only 19 per cent of the registered voters voted, and a very large part of the people eligible to vote did not register. It was shown further that throughout the United States the number who are entitled to register was considerably less than 75 per cent, and in some States less than 50 per cent; also, of those who did register, about 45 per cent, on the average, voted. Senator JOHNSON. You realize, too, that a stock argument against the direct primary is the percentage of votes, do you not? Senator KING. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. But that does not militate against our advocacy of the direct primary, I am sure. Senator KING. Not at all. I was wondering if, in Athens, where only about 3 or 4 or 5 per cent of the citizens voted, you would consider that in the days of Pericles they had a good government. Mr. GRAY. I think they proved their competency. The CHAIRMAN. There was a protest made by the Senator from Missouri, who asked that the witness be allowed to proceed. Mr. GRAY. Continuing, then, with some supporting statements from the Presidents of the United States relative to their general approval of the proposition of the Philippines eventually being granted their independence, we find President Taft saying: What shall be done in the future — 92 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. What date is that? Mr. GRAY. This is a letter from Mr. Taft when he was Secretary of War, in March, 1905. What shall be done in the future * * * is a question which will doubtless have to be settled by another generation than the present, both of the American and of the Philippine people, to whose wisdom and generosity we may safely trust the solution of the problem. Should the Philippine people when fit for self-government demand independence, I should be strongly in favor of giving it to them; and I have no doubt that the American people of the next generation would be of the same opinion. That brings to my mind the statement that we have been discussing here this morning. When shall independence be granted the Filipinos, taking it as a matter of policy, if we may, that the expression of Congress in setting up the Philippine government promised them eventual independence? We find President Taft also saying, in his special report when he was Secretary of War in 1908, as follows: It (the United States policy toward the Philippines) necessarily involves in its ultimate conclusion as the steps toward self-government become greater and greater, the ultimate independence of the islands, although, of course, if both the United States and the islands were to conclude after complete self-government were possible that it would be mutually beneficial to continue a governmental relation between them like that between England and Australia, there would be nothing inconsistent with the present policy in such a result. * * * If the American Government can only remain in the islands long enough to educate the entire people, to give them a language which enables them to come into contact with modern civilization, and to extend to them from time to time additional political rights so that by the exercise of them they shall learn the use and responsibilities necessary to their proper exercise, independence can be granted with entire safety to the people. I have an abiding conviction that the Philippine people are capable of being taught self-government in the process of their self-development. * * * While I have always refrained from making this (the development of trade between the Occident and the Orient) the chief reason of the retention of the Philippines, because the real reason lies in the obligation of the United States to make its people fit for self-government, and then to turn the government over to them, I don't think it improper in order to secure support for the policy to state such additional reason. There is a very explicit statement from President Taft, before he became President, which includes, first, the idea that the Philippines were not ready for independence at the time this was written, in 1908, but that our obligation to make them independent stood out prominently. We also have this from President Taft. in an address of March, 1918: It (the statement in the Democratic platform favoring independence) is an affirmation of policy only slightly different from that repeatedly announced by this and preceding Republican admin'strations. Along the same line, and showing the general approval of eventual independence, we find President Wilson stating, prior to the statement I quoted from him a while ago, in which he advocated definite and immediate independence, as follows: We must hold steadily in view their ultimate independence, and we must move toward the time of that independence as steadily as the way can be cleared and the foundation thoughtfully and permanently laid. This was in his message to Congress of Deceinber, 1913. Also in the same message we find: By their (the Philippine people) wise counse land experience rather than by our own we shall learn how best to serve them and how soon it will be possible INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 93 and wise to withdraw our supervision. Let us once find the path and set out with firm and confident tread upon it and we shall not wander from it nor linger upon it. Following that, in 1920, as I have formerly quoted, President Wilson definitely approved immediate independence. We find President Harding saying, in his statement to the Philippine Legislative Delegation in 1922: I can only commend the Philippine aspirations to independence and complete self-sovereignty. None in America would wish you to be without national aspirations. You would be unfitted for the solemn duties of self-government without them. Finally, we find President Coolidge, in 1924, in a letter to the speaker of the Philippine Legislative Assembly, saying: It is not possible to believe that the American people would wish to continue their responsibility in regard to the sovereignty and administration of the islands. It is not conceivable that they would desire, merely because they possessed the power, to continue exercising any measure of authority over a people who could better govern themselves on a basis of complete independence. Now, President Coolidge, in the rest of this statement, runs off in a direct quotation from the Republican platform of the last convention prior to his statement: If the time comes when it is apparent that independence would be better for the people of the Philippines from the point of view of both their domestic concerns and their status in the world, and if when that time comes the Filipino people desire complete independence, it is not possible to doubt that the American Government and people will gladly accord it. We find President Coolidge also saying, in a letter to Governor General Wood, in April, 1927: Finally, I feel that it (the act to hold a plebiscite relative to Philippine independence) should be disapproved, because * * * it is delaying the arrival of the day when the Philippines will have overcome the most obvious present difficulty in the way of its maintenance of an unaided government. I am giving all those quotations, particularly the last, which are devoted to the question of showing the presidential thought that eventually the Philippines are to have independence, and the other statements formerly given to show that only one President has indicated permanent retention, only one President has indicated immediate independence, and several Presidents have indicated that the Philippines were not then ready for independence; all of that is being quoted, I say, to show that the congressional policy enunciated in Public, No. 240, of the Sixty-fourth Congress, from which I quoted earlier in the hearing this morning, is also the executive policy of every President we have had since the SpanishAmerican War. Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, would it be proper for me, reference having been made to Mr. Roosevelt, in order that I might not quote him inaccurately, to put into the record just exactly what he says? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, sir. Senator KING. May I read it? The CHAIRMAN. Can it be put into the record without being read? Senator KING. It is very brief, and it will not take long. The CHAIRMAN. There are several witnesses to be heard. I hope the Senator will put it in without reading it. 92109-30-PT 1 7 94 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator KING. Of course, I will have to do that. Senator HARRIS. How many lines is it? Senator KING. I can read it in two minutes. Senator HARRIS. I think he ought to be allowed to read it, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Senator KING. Speaking of the Jones Act, and interpreting it, this is what Mr. Roosevelt said in an article which he wrote in 1918: In order to use the Navy effectively we should cleariy define to ourselves the policy we intend to follow and the limits over which we expect our power to extend. Our own coasts, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Panama Canal and its approaches should represent the sphere in which we should expect to be able, single handed, to meet and master any opponent from overseas. I exclude the Philippines. This is because I feel that the present administration has definitely committed us to a course of action which will make the early and complete severance of the Philippines from us not merely desirable but necessary. I have never felt that the Philippines were of any special use to us. But I have felt that we had a task to perform there and that a great nation is benefited by doing a great task. It was our bounden duty to work primarily for the interest of the Filipinos; but it was also our bounden duty, inasmuch as the entire responsibility lay upon us, to consult our own judgment and not theirs in finally deciding what was to be done. In another article, very much shorter, referring to the Democratic platform and the Jones bill, he says, referring to the Democratic administration: Apparently its course in the Philippines has proceeded upon the theory that the Filipinos are now fit to govern themselves. Whatever may be our personal and individual beliefs in this matter, we ought not, as a Nation, to break faith or even to seem to break faith. In another article this appears: I hope, therefore, that the Filipinos will be given their independence at an early date and without any guaranty from us which might in any way hamper our future action or commit us to staying on the Asiatic coast. I do not believe we should keep any foothold whatever in the Philippines. Any kind of position by us 'in the Philippines merely results in making them our heel of Achilles if we are attacked by a foreign power. They can be of no compensating benefit to us. If we were to retain complete control over them and to continue the course of action which in the past 16 years has resulted in suce immeasurable benefit to them, then I should feel that it was our duty to stay and work for them in spite of the expense incurred by us and the risk we thereby ran. But inasmuch as we have now promised to leave them, and as we are now abandoning our power to work efficiently for and in them, I do not feel that we are warranted in staying in the islands in an equivocal position, thereby incurring great risk to ourselves without conferring any real compensating advantage, of a kind which we are bound to take into account, on the Filipinos themselves. If the Filipinos are entitled to independence, then we are entitled to be freed from all the responsibility and risk which our presence in the islands entails upon us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAY. Continuing, if I may, upon the economic side of the Philippine question it brings me to speak of that phase of it which isSenator JOHNSON. Paramount. Mr. GRAY. Well, of a selfish interest. Senator JOHNSON. And paramount with your organization. Mr. GRAY. I presume it iS the most important feature of our approach to the question, Senator Johnson, although we are not throwing into the discard the historical and the moral side. I hardly know INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 95 how to approach this question, except just from one point of view, because it has so many ramifications that if I try to approach it from all points of view we shall consume too much time. Let me confine myself, if I may, to the discussion as to whether or not the Philippine Islands have reached their goal or zenith of agricultural production. It has been advanced by some that the American farmer need have no fear beyond the present situation from the Philippine importations of agricultural products. It has been brought to our attention in connection with sugar, coconut-oil production, and copra production, that the American farmer who produces sugar and the American farmer who produces vegetables and animal oils to compete against the coconut and the copra oils might continue to have competition in the future; but it will not be any more severe than it is at the present time, so some people inform us. I am devoting myself to that side of it, if I may. I can not do any better than to bring to your attention some expressions of men who have first-hand knowledge of the situation in the Philippine Islands, and who suggest and intimate, and. in some cases directly state, that the Philippine Islands are capable of very wide expansion of agricultural production beyond that which exist at the present time. I have here a statement from the Survey of Economic Conditions in the Philippine Islands, by Lyman P. Hammond, vice president of the Electric Bond & Share Co., to the Governor General in 1928. I find Mr. Hammond stating: In my opinion the natural opportunities for increasing the business done in and by the Philippine Islands are both great and numerous, and I believe the plan of expansion that will follow natural and the most profitable lines will involve expansion of agricultural and lumbering operations here to many times the present volume. This will create and distribute wealth, improve the standards of living, increase the purchasing power of the people, and so bring in its wake a corresponding development of manufactures and other industries. Just to review that, it means Mr. Hammond thinks that in regard to agriculture and lumbering industries a possibility of expansion exists to many times the present volume. If we have at the present time approximately 600,000 tons of sugar coming in, and large amounts of coconut oil and copra, why not, if Mr. Hammond is right, look to the future and see greater amounts of those things coming in? I have alsoSenator JOHNSON. Are those the chief agricultural productions you refer to? Mr. GRAY. Sugar and the oils are the principal things which compete with products that we farmers in America produce. Tobacco is involved to a certain extent. Senator JOHNSON. And lumber? Mr. GRAY. We do not produce lumber, Senator Johnson, in a direct, first-hand way. Senator JOHNSON. I know, but do you put that in the same category Mr. GRAY. Mr. Hammond does. Senator JOHNSON. Do you Mr. GRAY. Not as an agricultural source of competition. Senator JOHNSON. But in the same category in reference to the protection that should be accorded it in this country? 96 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. (;IGAY. Yes; I would. I did not understand your question. Senator HAWES. Certainly you would include hemp? Mr. GRAY. Hemp should be added to it. Mr. Hammond is right about the future development. Hemp would be a competitor of some of the things we raise in the United States. Senator HAWES. It is a competitor now. Mr. GRAY. Yes; it is a competitor now. I have also an extract from a publication entitled " Resources and Trade of the Philippine Islands," by M. A. Pugh, of the Far Eastern Division of the Department of Commerce, in 1926. That reads as follows: Philipl)ine economic and commercial development has only begun. In addition to their great agricultural output the Islands are rich in forest products, minerals, and fish, which at present are largely latent sources of wealth. That quotation comes from Dr. Julius Klein, in the introduction to the bulletin by Mr. Pugh. Quoting from Mr. Pugh's text, it is: The yield of sugar is believed to be far below that which wvould be possible with a fully developed system of cultivation. More extensive use of fertilizers, artificial irrigation where needed, improved drainage, and the establishment of a model farm to demonstrate to planters the advantages of improved methods. are recommendations which have frequently been advanced to aid in the deve'.lpment of sugar cultivation. You will notice there that Mr. Pugh says several things must be done before an increase of sugar can be possible, such as improved drainage, irrigation, a model farm to demonstrate sugar production, and so forth. I dliscontinue Mr. Pugh's quotation for a minute to refer to the annlual report of the bureau of agriculture of the Philippine goveminenit for the year 1929. Here are the projects, some of which are reported upon by that bureau, showing that along rural educational lines tiley are almost duplicating what our agricultural experiment stations and our agricultural extension forces and colleges of agriculture iand other institutions in America are doing for our agriculture. They have fertilizer projects, agricultutral extension projects, plant-pest control, rural credits, animal industry, veterinary work, publications-and, in fact, if you will read their report for 1927, it (sound1s very much like the report of any of the departments of agriculture of any of the States of the United States, excepting that the diseases of the animals are somewhat different. Particularly I want to call your attention to the recommendations in this report of the bureau of agriculture for 1927, of the Philippine government, to show how nearly they are following some of our l)recedents. There is some facetiousness in this, because, in a jocular way, it can be said that they are ready for independence because they are following the same things we do. For instance, their first recormtlen(dation is for more salaries. That surely shows that they are Amlericanizing the government of the Philippines. Senator JOHNSON. Larger ones, you mean? Mr. GRAY. More salaries for their older employees, Senator. Senator JOHNSON. And larger ones. Mr. GRAY. That will come later. Their second recommendation is for more appropriations to enlarge the personnel. The third recommendation is for sending technologists abroad to study their various problems in relation to their home situation. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 97 Senator JOHNSON. That is the appointment of commissions. Mr. GRAY. Their next recommendation is for regional experiment stations for special crops. I have heard of that being advocated at Washington in regard to various of our States needing special study of special crops through experiment stations provided at the cost of the Federal Government. Another recommendation that they lay particular stress upon is for more building. Another one is for more funds for printing what they have already found out. The last, which shows them, perhaps, to be most qualified for independence, is a recommendation for specific farm-relief legislation along several lines. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they have taken good advantage of their being under the American flag? Mr. GRAY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. To learn all the matters which the American farmer has learned. Mr. GRAY. I bring that report to your attention in connection with Mr. Pugh's statement, in which statement he intimates that there is a great possibility of sugar development if certain things are done, and I bring this report of the bureau of agriculture to show you that those things are under way and are being done. They are studying those questions. The CHAIRMAN. If they stay under the American flag they are likely to be done. Mr. GRAY. If they do not stay under the American flag some would conclude that they would not be done. How that will work out is absolutely in the lap of the Gods. The CHAIRMAN. It is admitted by the Filipinos themselves that they would have to go through a period of very hard times, when they would undoubtedly be unable to carry out some of those undertakings. Senator HAWES. But they have also stated, Mr. Gray, through the Speaker, that they put independence above sugar, coffee, coconuts, or any other product, and that they could work out their destiny in the course of time if we gave them independence. Mr. GRAY. I believe that is their statement. Senator JOHNSON. Then they have gone far beyond us. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Pugh continues: Although the demand for copra and its products in the United States far exceeds the output of the Philippines, only a small proportion of the available land is devoted to coconut plantations. The unequal distribution of population and the inadequate transportation facilities are reasons for the lack of development of copra production. About 35 per cent of the total output comes from southern Luzon, which is the most densely populated region of the islands and which is more accessible to markets. The soil and climate of Mindanao, however, are now claimed to be better suited to the cultivation of the coconut palms, and it is probable that the greatest future development of the Philippine copra industry may be on that island. In that connection let me state it is well known that in the Island of Mindanao the Firestone Corporation, represented by Harvey Firestone, made a proposal to go in there and develop a very large valley, the Cotobato Valley, which proposal was turned down by the Philippine Government. In their oratorical burst of wisdom 98 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS they said that they did not want to be bound to the United States with chains of gold. The CHAIRMAN. That was to develop it for rubber. Mr. GRAY. Harvey Firestone made a definite proposal to go in there and develop the most fertile valley, perhaps, of the island of Mindanao. employing thousands of people, and spending hundreds of thousands-in fact, millions-of dollars of money, and putting a development in there which would have made that valley a very large producer of rubber. He was denied the opportunity, or, at least, if not denied, was repulsed and was not encouraged to go further with that proposal. Then Mr. Spreckles, representing one of the big sugar companies, has studied the same valley. Perhaps he has not made as definite a proposal to go in there and develop it as Mr. Firestone did, but Mr. Spreckles has suggested-and more than suggested-his interest in the island of Mindanao as a sugar producing area, and, singularly, has seized upon the same valley that Mr. Firestone was considering for rubber production, which makes my humble mind conclude that if a valley in Mindanao is suitable for rubber it is also suitable for sugar. Let me quote from Mr. Spreckle's testimony before the Finance Committee, to see just what he is thinking of in regard to the Philippines as a sugar-producing area. In the hearings on Schedule 5, in June, 1929, before the Finance Committee, at pages 167 to 177 of the record of those hearings, we find him saying: I would like to state this for illustration. If the legislation goes through and we have a 2.40 duty and the Hawaiian-owned plantations insist upon the present methods and you do not limit or restrict the exports of sugar from the Philippines, I am going to make this statement to you right now, that as a matter of self-preservation I personally would go to the Philippines, and every other refinery on the Atlantic coast would be foolish not to go to the Philippines and there own and operate their own refineries, bring in the duty-free sugar and be in identically the same position with the Hawaiian Islands. I, personally, would go to the Philippines to-morrow if I thought you would go through with this thing without corrective measures to hold it in line. Further he says: As a refiner I could go to the Philippines, own my own plantation or the plantations own my refinery. I could get all of my profit just as the Hawaiians do. Further, he states: I maintain, further, that if the Philippines should so desire, and American capital desired to expand the sugar industry in the Philippines, that they could grow enough sugar to supply the United States. But contemplate what would happen to us if we were dependent upon the Philippine sugar in the event of war. Mr. Spreckles stated that in June of last year. Before that time he had been to the Philippines, and when he says he would go to the Philippines under certain conditions, we may take it as meaning that he knows what the Philippine conditions are into which he would be going; all of which demonstrates, to my mind, that the expression of Mr. Pugh, that the islands are capable of great expansion, is true. not only along rubber lines but along sugar and copra lines. If a certain territory in the Philippines is capable of producing rubber, with certain exceptions it is capable of producing sugar. It is evi INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 99 dent, in that regard, that although the islands are a thousand miles long north and south, the temperatures at the southernmost weather station and the mean annual temperature at the northernmost weather station differ only about 11/20. So the climatic conditions, relative to temperature, precipitation, and other things which I could call to your attention, are pretty common throughout the islands. The soil conditions, of course, would be a factor which might make some difference in certain limited areas. Continuing further we have from the Handbook on Philippine Sugar, second edition, 1929, by George H. Fairchild, secretary and treasurer of the Philippine Sugar Association, this expression: Basing an estimate on the record of exports of the islands for the last 10 years, from 1918 to 1927, which show a total export of 268,940 long tons in 1918 and 544,579 long tons in 1927, an increase of approximately 100 per cent, the Philippine sugar industry will have a maximum potential production of approximately 1,000,000 tons 10 years from now, assuming that the present free-trade relations between the United States and the Philippines are not disturbed. To what extent has the tariff policy of the United States on insular sugar stimulated sugar production in those islands? The year prior to the granting of tariff concession by the United States to its insular possessions their production of sugar amounted to: Hawaii, 12,541 tons; Porto Rico, 39,200 tons; Philippines, 6,200 tons. The 1925-26 sugar production of these islands was: Hawaii, 689,286 tons; Porto Rico, 544,884 tons; and the Philippines, 425,000 tons. That is the answer of Mr. Fairchild's organization as to the effect of granting free trade to an island which produces sugar. It has stimulated not only the production of sugar in the islands, but it has stimulated the importation of sugar into our markets. Singularly, the importation of Philippine sugar, as compared with Hawaiian and Porto Rican, does not show nearly as large as the importation from those islands, the reason being that free trade on Philippine sugar did not begin until 1913, I believe, whereas free trade on Hawaiian sugar has existed since the 70's, and with Porto Rico approximately twice as long as with the Philippines. So that if free trade with the Philippines extends as long as it has with Porto Rico and Hawaii, you may expect, under the figures of Mr. Fairchild, a very large expansion of production there, and the marketing of that production in our markets. The CHAIRMAN. How much longer would you like to be heard? There are several witnesses yet to be heard. Mr. GRAY. I am practically finished. The CHAIRMAN. I want you to have all the time you need. Mr. GRAY. I have just devoted myself to the economic issue, and one phase of that issue, namely, that the agricultural production of the Philippine Islands is not at its zenith. It is my belief that it is capable of further expansion. Whether these statements, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, are to be taken as mathematically exact, is neither here nor there. They are estimates by men who have made first-hand studies, and should be taken only as estimates, but I believe they do justify this conclusion, that the Philippine Islands are capable of expansion beyond where they are at the present time. Coming to the final aspect of this question, the humanitarian side, or the moral side, I have only this to say, briefly, because we have 100 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS talked about that so much already this morning, we desire the most good for the Philippines. We will grant, Mr. Chairman, that there will be some severity, economically speaking, involved in the severance of the Philippine people from the JUnited States. They do not deny the severity of the economic severance. They say they are willing to meet that severance with the best means they have available. We are willing, as I have suggested, that the severance be not made absolutely and instantaneously, even though independence might be granted them, but we are willing to give them a moratorium, or a period of years to make their economic adjustments, whatever adjustments are necessary to make. However, granting that there will be a shock of an economic nature, the question comes up in regarcd to humanitarianism. Are we going to take them along under the American flag, as the chairman states it, or, as I would state it, without granting them independence, and let them have free trade. free entry to our markets, so that when this sugar production increases, when this coconut production increases, when this hemp production increases, and all these other products down there increase, the granting of independence would entail such an elaborate or magnified economic shock that we would not dare give them independence at that future time? Stating it conversely, in another way, the question is this, briefly: Shall we grant them independence now, when their development is not full and complete, when their markets are capable of being expanded not only in this country, but elsewhere, or shall we delay independence 20 years, or another generation, when they will develop such a market in our country under the free trade atmosphere that independence at that time will be an economic impossibility? Stating it still another way, the question is this: Shall we grant them independence now, when it is politically and economically possible to have independence granted. or shall we delay it for another 25 years, when economically it will be impossible to grant independence? I would make this statement, not as a-prophecy, that if independence of the Philippines is delayed another generation, it is delayed in perpetuity, because the economic severance would be so severe at that time that the political severance would be impossible. The humanitarian approach to the question we have, then, is this, that although there may be a shock of a temporary nature at the present time, it is better to grant independence at this time, with whatever provisions the Congress wants to impose, than it is to delay it so indefinitely in the future as that it will be wholly impossible. We want to be kind to the Filipinos. We think the kindest way to treat them is to grant them independence when economically they can bear it. We are taking at 100 per cent value the statement of Congress that independence eventually is going to be granted them and my statement of humanitarianism is based upon the assumption that we are going to grant them independence. If we are not going to grant them independence, and if the statement of Congress in Public No. 240 of the Sixty-fourth Congress is a gesture, then what I say about humanitarianism falls to the ground. But I am basing my INDEPENDENCE FOB THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN7DS 101 statement of humanitarianism on the explicit terms of the promise of Congress, that they are going to have independence. Our belief, then, at the present time is that they can invite independence; they can stand independence; they can survive independence now; whereas 25 years from now they can not. The condition is comparable, may I suggest, to that which existed between our Colonies and the mother country in our Revolutionary War period. The severance was severe when we separated from England. The arguments against severance of a political nature were very similar to these arguments which are now being advanced against Philippine independence, but we separated ourselves from the mother country. We suffered the shock. We developed markets all over the world, rather than with England alone, and we survived. Now, the question for Congress to decide is this: Will that same thing repeat itself historically with the Philippines that proved itself to be true in our own case? I, representing the Farm Bureau Federation, think it will prove itself to be so, or else I would not testify as I have.. We want to be kind to the Filipinos. We do not want to do anything that will harm them. We think the kindest and most humane thing we can do is to grant them independence and let them build up their economic structure on a world basis rather than on a United States of America basis. I have concluded. Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Gray, is there anything in your entire argument which is seriously at variance with the program of tariff autonomy that leads definitely to independence? Mr. GOAY. Nothing seriously at variance, no, sir. iThe CHlAnBIM N. Your.remarks about what may happen to them if we keep developing them economically under our flag, and the impossibility of their ever being economically able to stand on their own legs would lead one to suppose that if Canada suddenly should decide to be independent, they would be bankrupt in a short time, which I do not think you will contend. Mr. GRAY. No. I would not say that Canada would be bankrupt. Neither would I say the Philippines would be bankrupt, but I do confess that there would be a shock, and we think the longer that shock is delayed the more severe it will become, and the less possible it will be to meet it. Senator JOHNSON. I can not subscribe to your historical parallel. Have you forgotten the ship laws Have you forgotten the peculiar tyrannical laws enacted by Great Britain in relation to our trade? Mr. GRAY. No; I have not forgotten that. Senator JOHNSON. That was the very converse of the situation that exists to-day between us and the Philippines. Mr. GRAY. In what way? Senator JOHNSON. The tyranny of Great Britain, as we were pleased to call it, affected economically the welfare of the Colonies, and that was one of the prime reasons for the Revolution. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. It was that tyranny, by which Great Britain sought to divert to Great Britain, under the severest penalties, all the trade of the United States, that caused in some degree-and in 102 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS the greatest degree, probably-our Revolution. What you suggest is that after a moratorium, brief in character, we shall indulge in an economic stifling of the Philippines. What exists to-day is no tyranny in reference to their trade so far as this country is concerned in its relations to the Philippines, but quite the reverse. So that your parallel does not strike me as being entirely accurate historically. Mr. GRAY. Perhaps you did not get the point that I was seeking to make, Senator. Senator JOHNSON. That may be. Mr. GRAY. It is this: That the Philippine market is in the United States, and their products are brought here at our solicitation, as well as their desire. That has been the situation down to the present date. In the Revolutionary period, to which I referred, and to which you alluded, our market in our thirteen Colonies was largely with the mother country. Senator JOHNSON. Because it was made so. Mr. GRAY. By tyrannical action of the mother country. Senator JOHNSON. Exactly. Mr. GRAY. And we were becomingSenator JOHNSON. We had the markets elsewhere, and we rebelled upon the theory that we were precluded from marketing our products elsewhere. Mr. GRAY. That historical figure is complete, and I do not think it conflicts with the point I made. Senator JOHNSON. You may be right about that. Mr. GRAY. We had a market largely with England, because we were forced to that market. The Philippines now have a market largely with us, because, down to date, it has been desired both by them and by us. The point I make is this: That if we had continued in the revolutionary period with only one market, whether it was induced on us by tyranny or by desire, and had not separated the time we did, we would have become so bound by commercial ties to England, even though they might have been forced on us by tyranny, that 25 years from then we might never have separated from England. In the Philippine question the same thing is evident, imposed by a different process, I confess, but the situation is the same. The Philippines have one market in the world, to a large extent, now, and that is the United States of America. Senator JOHNSON. A natural market. Mr. GRAY. We want to expand that market, and, as I understand them, they want to expand that market to other nations, just as, following the Revolutionary War, we expanded our market all over the world. Senator JOHNSON. But there is no objection to that, and they have the right to do that. Their natural market now is with us. Mr. GRAY. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. They may extend their markets as they see fit. They may do just as they desire. The objection they make to extending the coastwise shipping laws to them is that we might thereby interfere with that very purpose. Mr. GRAY. Yes. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 103 Senator JOHNSON. And it is far from any of us to do so. Mr. GRAY. But that does not obviate or lessen the force of the point I was making, that they have one market now; and may I say in a self-interested way that the market which they have conflicts most severely with the market which a large group of our own people, the farmers, desire? Senator JOHNSON. Exactly. Mr. GRAY. And if they could expand their market into other parts of the world, as they evidence a desire to do, their situation would be comparable to and not diverse from our position with the mother country back in 1776. Senator JOHNSON. No; it is quite the reverse. They have the right, and they would extend their markets to the other parts of the world if it were possible to do so. They can do so; that is to say, they have the right to do so. They have the power to do so, and there is neither interference nor objection on our part. But your objection, coming down to the last analysis, is that their market here interferes with the market of some of our own people in this country. Mr. GRAY. That is one of our arguments, yes. Senator JOHNSON. In the last analysis that is the real argument. I speak but tentatively, please understand me, and I express no view in reference to this bill, nor in reference to my ultimate action. What you wish is-and when you put it upon the basis of kindness to the Filipinos, and discuss it from a humanitarian standpoint. I can not quite follow you-to give them independence, to give them a brief moratorium, and then, if this yet remains their natural market, their only economical outlet, you are going to shut it off and going to deny it to them. That is your position exactly. Mr. GRAY. On the economic side of it. Senator JOHNSON. Yes. That is the chief argument you make hlere, as I understand it. That is scarcely kind, in the first place, and certainly it is not humanitarian in the second. Mr. GRAY. Well, would it be kinder —if the intent of Congress, expressed back in the 64th Congress, is a true intent, to give them independence, if that is to be carried out, Senator Johnson —is it kinder to give them their independence now, when the shock will be trivial, or shall we delay that for 25 years and give them their independence when the shock would be suicidal. Senator JOHNSON. I am not quarreling with your desired consummation. Mr. GRAY. That is the purpose of the argument on the basis of kindness. Senator JOHNSON. I am not quarreling with your desired consummation, or with the conclusion you reach. I quarrel With the argument. Senator HAWES. I think, Mr. Gray, following the statement of the Speaker the other day, he had in mind this thought, that so long as the United States controls and directs the Philippine Islands, foreign money will not come in there in investmehts in manufuactures, farms, and so forth. It is practically limited to American investment to-day, and until this question is settled they are confined both to American capital for development and to the United States as a market. But with independence they could interest the capital of the 104 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS world and seek the markets of the world. I think that was the point that-the Speaker tried to make the other day. Senator JOHNSON. Yes. Senator HAWES. There is a little shade of difference. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gray. Mr. Loomis, how much time do you need? Mr. LooMIs. Only two or three minutes, Senator Bingham. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. STATEMENT OF A. M. LOOMIS, SECRETARY NATIONAL DAIRY UNION Mr. LOOMIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is A. M Loomis. I am secretary of the National Dairy Union. I appear here as secretary of a committee which has been organized and operating very informally ever since the passage of the last tariff act, which we call the tariff defense committee, representing the American producers of fats and oils. I also represent the Texas Cotton Seed Crushers' Association tariff committee. Mr. Chairman, I could take, and wish I might have the opportunity to take, a long time to discuss the economic phases of this situation. But, after all, I would only be repeating and adding to the very things which Mr. Gray has been saying here this morning. In view of the situation of the committee and the limited time, I am just going to say that I am bringing to the support of the arguments and the position which Mr. Gray has taken the indorsement of a pretty complete unit of the dairy industry of the United States. Our argument is purely economic, purely what has been termed here a selfish argument, which we prefer to call the protective argument. Senator VANDENBERG. You are speaking in behalf of immediate independence? Mr. LOOMIS. I am speaking, first, in behalf of a tariff, because I believe that the honest and sincere way to get this tariff protection which the oils and fats producing industries of the United States must have if they are to be saved from ruin is by giving independence. Senator VANDENBERG. Would there be anything in your position which would be inconsistent with a program of complete tariff autonomy, by way of establishing the Philippines in readiness for independence? Mr. LooMIs. There would not be. The more quickly it can be done the better it would suit us. The CHAIRMAN. In a little pamphlet sent the committee by the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, 67 Wall Street, New York City, and which will be printed in the record, there is this paragraph, to which I would like to call your attention and ask your comment: The agitation against Philippine coconut oil is because it is used for making margarine, which is said to compete with American buttcr. The production of butter in the United States is over 2.000,000,000 pounds a year. In 1928 the consumption of coconut oil in the manufacture of margarine in the United States was approximately 160,000,000 pounds, or about 8 per cent of the butter production. In converting this oil into margarine, huge quantities of milk produced by American dairy farmers are employed. Margarine costs wholesale from 16 to 17 cents a pound, and the average price of butter, including all the grades, is about 35 cents a pound. INDEPENDENCE FOR -THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 105 Are those figures approximately correct? Mr. LoobMs. Approximately; yes. Senator HAWES. Mr. Chairman, at this point may I ask are we going to summon the Philippine Export Organization to testify here? The CHAIRMAN. They have asked the privilege of testifying. Senator HAWES. I would certainly like to have them come, so that I may find out how they are supported, how they are financed, and whether they are responsible for these telegrams we are beginning to receive. It would temporarily relieve the lobby committee of a portion of its duties. (The document referred to is as follows:) THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION, PUBLISHED BY PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NEW YORK CITY The objects of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce are to foster and promote trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States. If the Islands were to become politically independent, our exports to the Islands and the exports from the Islands to all places, would be enormously reduced. According to the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Philippine Islands rank fifteenth in the list of our 68 principal exports customers, and they rank eleventh in the list of our 72 principal sources of imports into the United States. The islands are therefore of pronounced importance in American trade. In 1928 the total imports of the islands were $134,656,898 of which $83,858,067, or 62 per cent, came from the United States. The exports were $155,054,546, of which $115,585,875, or 75 per cent, went to the United States. American agriculture supplies a substantial proportion of our shipments to the Philippines. For example, in 1928 American agricultural produce, raw and manufactured, included: Cotton products, $15,398,033; breadstuffs, $4,991,523; tobacco, $3,005,456; dairy products, $3,000,976; fruits and nuts, $1,235,268; meat products, $718,808; vegetables, $676,828; wool manufactures, $452,712; honey, $4,999; making a total of $29,484,603, or about 35 per cent of the total imports into the islands from the United States. If the islands became independent, this outlet for American agricultural products would be almost completely lost. The five chief items of imports into the United States from the Philippines in 1928 were: Coconut oil, $23,239,520; copra, $17,603,832; sugar, $45,669,000; hemp, $9,525,000; tobacco, $4,380,000. It is claimed that the coconut oil and sugar compete with American farmers. This claim is the foundation for the present agitation for independence. Waiving the question of the morality of deciding a great issue on the purely selfish economic policies of one section of our population, and basing the consideration on purely economic facts, the situation appears to be as follows: The agitation against Philippine coconut oil is because it is used for making margarine, which is said to compete with American butter. The production of butter in the United States is over 2,000,000,000 pounds a year. In 1928 the consumption of coconut oil in the manufacture of margarine in the United States was approximately 160,000,000 pounds, or about 8 per cent of the butter production. In converting this oil into margarine huge quantities of milk produced by American dairy farmers are employed. Margarine costs wholesale from 16 cents to 17 cents a pound, and the average price of butter, including all the grades, is about 35 cents a pound. The best authorities claim that they will show that there is very little actuality in the statement that Philippine coconut oil seriously injures American dairy products. This evidence will be laid before Congress fully as the facts and figures can be prepared. Meanwhile, however, one factor is clear, that we have an attempt to force poor people to use butter at double the cost of the article which they can now buy and which they want to buy. The "sugar barons" are largely responsible for the present movement for Philippine independence. Their reasoning about Philippine sugar seems to be 106 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS as bad as their actions were revealed to be by the Senate lobbying committee. The testimony showed that these "sugar barons," in their endeavor to carry out their plans went so far as to toy with the fringes of sedition. They revealed the secrets of our national-defense policy and proposed a plan for stirring up sentiment and feeling against the United States among our friendly Latin American neighbors. The reasoning of the "sugar barons," notwithstanding its questionable motives and its inherent unsoundness, seems to have been swallowed whole by the domestic beet-sugar interests and by their representatives in Congress. The fact is that the selling value of domestic beet and cane sugars is not affected one iota by Philippine sugar, or, for that matter, by Porto Rican or Hawaiian sugar. The oniy sugar affected by sugars grown in United States territory is Cuban sugar. The United States in 1929 used approximately 6,000,000 tons of raw sugar. This was supplied about as follows: Cuba, 3,050,000 tons, 51 per cent; Porto Rico, 460,000 tons, 8 per cent; Hawaii, 798,000 tons, 13 per cent; Philippine Islands, 610,000 tons, 10 per cent; domestic beet sugar, 980,000 tons, 16 per cent; domestic cane sugar, 142,000 tons, 2 per cent. Until the 3,000,000 tons imported annually from Cuba is displaced by increased production of domestic beet or cane sugar, or by increased importations from the Philippines, from Porto Rico, or from Hawaii, the sugars grown in United States territory other than continental United States do not compete in price with domestic-grown sugar in the slightest degree. The duty on foreign sugar other than Cuban is 2.20 cents p r pound, or about 110 per cent ad valorem on the present value of world sugars laid down at United States ports. The duty on Cuban sugar is 1.76 cents per pound, or about 88 per cent of the present value of Cuban sugar laid down at United States ports. Behind this tariff wall domestic-grown sugar, Philippine sugar, Porto Rican sugar, and Hawaiian sugar supply the market to the extent of only one-half of its needs. The other half must be bought in the markets of the world, and naturally is bought from Cuba, because Cuba has a preferential duty of 44 cents per 100 pounds. The price of Cuban sugar is fixed by the price of sugar in the world's market plus the duty. The price of sugar grown in the United States, in the Philippines, in Porto Rico, and in Hawaii is fixed by the duty-paid price of Cuban sugar in the United States market. Shutting out Philippine sugar would accomplish nothing except to transfer to Cuban sugar an outlet in the United States for approximately 600,000 tons which Cuba does not now possess, and this it is proposed to do by consigning the Philippine sugar industry to utter ruin. The low price of sugar is due to one thing, and one thing only, and that is world overproduction. Until this is rectified no sound or natural means of helping sugar producers is possible. Certainly it can not be done by legislating against the about 21/2 per cent quota of the world's production which comes from the Philippines. The inconsistence and lack of principle of the attempt to shut out Philippine sugar is shown by the fact that although Porto Rican sugar is in exactly the same category as Philippine sugar, no effort is being made to shut out the Porto Rican sugar, which condition, however, is correct and proper. There is no great aggregation of American capital in the Philippines like there is in Porto Rico, Hawaii, and in Cuba. To attack the sugars coming from those quarters would be to invite the hostility of powerful interests. The Philippines are weak and relatively defenseless, and therefore were singled out for attack. The exports of hemp from the islands to the United States would not be affected by independence as hemp is duty free from all places. As hemp is in effect a natural monopoly of the Philippine Islands, it is conceivable and most likely that it would, in case of independence, carry a heavy export tax in order to enable the islands to obtain badly needed revenue. As respects tobacco and its products, while the islands shipped to us. in 1928, $4,380,000 worth of their products, we shipped to them $3,005,456 of Americangrown tobacco and its products. The net result would be a heavy loss of business to American tobacco growers, and an added burden to the Americans who now buy the cheap Manila cigars. The Philippine Islands are under the sovereignty of the United States, and are part of the territory of the United States. Any action which Congress might take would be under paragraph 2, section 3, Article IV of the Constitution. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 107 This gives Congress power to " dispose of" territory of the United States. We hold that it can be proven that this power is merely to "dispose of" territory or lands in the same way that our public domain in the West has been disposed of from time to time. The constitutional right to dispose of the sovereignty of any territory of the United States is reserved to the States or the people under amendment X to the Constitution. The Supreme Court in what is known as the Diamond Rings case (183 U. S. 176). fixed the status ofthe.isands as "domestic territory " of the United States. It is public domain'the same as our West was at one time. It is true that successive Presidents, Congress, and various officials have promised eventual independence. These promises can not be redeemed in a legal manner except through the action of the States or of the people of the United States as prescribed by the Constitution. The Filipinos are entitled to sympathetic consideration of their aspiration for eventual independence, but to grant them independence before they are economically prepared to survive is cruelty, not sympathy. When the American people and their Government took over the Philippine Islands, they established there a new era of health, education and literacy, standards of living, of transportation, amusements, and of everything else which goes to differentiate the civilization of the East from that of the West. The maintenance of these standards depends upon the economic welfare of the people. If the islands were given their independence before they were economically prepared for it, the result: would be financial and industrial chaos, in the wake of which would follow great suffering and hardship for the Filipinos, and the loss of a great part of the progress which these people have made under the leadership and protection of the powerful people who in 1898 assumed sovereignty over them. Their sugar, coconut oil, and desiccated coconut industries, which represent 46~2 per cent of their total exports, would be bankrupted, and it would take years to partially rehabilitate them. They could never be totally restored. As a result, the balance of trade, which during the years 1922-1928 has been in favor of the islands to the extent of $15,000,000 (low) to $39,500,000 (high), would go against the islands. The peso would become greatly depreciated, which would mean financial collapse.. Revenues would be greatly depleted, so that the public services, such as health, transportation, and education, would become demoralized. A qualified expert has recently estimated that the revenues of the islands would be decreased from 40 to 50 per cent in case of independence at this time. General unemployment would ensue, with its inevitable train of suffering and public unrest. Nearly $100,000,000 of Philippine Government bonds are held by investors in the United States, every dollar of which was officially issued to the American public by the Department of War. The effect of this method of issue was to convey to investors the implication of a guarantee of good faith and security by the United States Government. The value of these bonds would be seriously reduced if adverse legislation becomes a law. This would constitute a species of moral repudiation both undignified and dishonorable. During the past 11 years billions of American money have been invested abroad. Probably less than 1 per cent of these investments has been made in the Philippines, notwithstanding the fact that the islands have great latent resources. The reason has been the uncertainty of the political status of the islands. If this uncertainty were removed and positive tenure for a fixed period were established, capital would go to the islands and they would be established on a self-supporting basis. Eventually the American people could with a clean conscience and in a spirit of genuine benevolence give the Filipinos their independence instead of meeting out disaster to them under the mask of a generous act. This mask has been assumed purely for selfish reasons, and as a gesture of help to American farmers. The newspapers of the country have been honest and courageous enough to reveal this, and to state the facts which are behind the present independence movement. The Members of Congress who favor Philippine independence, or restrictions or duties, are out of step with public opinion as indicated by the press of the country. The Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce for months past has collected editorial expressions from newspapers in every part of the country, and the evidence is conclusive. Public opinion will, we hope, prevent a gross betrayal of trust and will dictate the correct course to be taken to redeem our obligations to the Filipinos, so that when they are given their 108 INDEPENDE CE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS independence, they will be given peace and prosperity, instead of unrest and disaster. Mr. LooMis. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to let the statement you have just quoted go into the record without our further comment. The CHAIRMAN. I shall be very glad to have you comment on it. Mr. LOOMIS. The dairy industry of the United States, Senator Bingham, is not asking for a tariff against coconut oil because of the reasons which have just been set forth in that statement. There will be plenty of vegetable oil in the United States to make all the oleomargarine that will be made and sold if all the coconut oil were shut out from the United States. We have what we think is a much broader and, we hope, much more statesmanlike view of the situation than that. We want to develop the fats and oils producing industry of the United States, because that means new industries to the farmers in every part of the United States. The trouble which the dairy industry has at the present time is from overproduction of dairy products, due to the farmers all over the country going into the dairy industry, because of the lack of available profitable other enterprises. If we can not produce a soyabean industry in the United States which will add greatly to the prosperity of American farmers and take them out of the production of surplus crops, then we are failing in what we think is our proper view of the subject. The oleomargarine business, or phase of the industry, is an important one to some people, but not by any means the largest one. One more statement. Last Monday when I came before the committee I had a telegram, received that day, which I neglected to bring, asking me to represent the Texas Cotton Oil Crushers' Association, placing the full support of their organization back of this move for Philippine independence. (Subsequently. this telegram was furnished for the record, as follows:) DALLAS, TEX., January 14, 1930. You are authorized to represent me as chairman Texas Cotton Seed Crushers' Association Tariff Committee in hearing on Philippine independence, and our association went on record yesterday in favor of it. ED WOODALL. Mr. LooMIS. There is no industry in the United States which is so seriously endangered and which is in much worse shape at the present time than the entire cotton oil crushing industry. The low price of Philippine coconut oils has created a situation which hits the cottonseed crusher first of all; second, it hits the cotton producer, because many tons of cottonseed are going back on the farms this year. They are not even being crushed into cottonseed oil. Senator JoHssoN. In order that the record may be complete, will yol please state in what way Philippine independence will facilitate the industries that you speak for, and aid them in the United States? Mr. LOOMIS. Just as Mr. Gray did, I must answer that question by saying, first, that we approach this matter from the point of view of tariff protection. The oil-producing industries of the United States, vegetable. animal and marine, can not produce those commodities in competition with Philippine coconut oil. We be INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 109 lieve that there should be economic protection afforded these Amer ican industries for their own protection and development, by a tariff. The only fair way that we see that question is by granting the Philippine Islands their independence, so that they may develop their industries in the markets of the world. Senator JOHNSON. And hand in hand with Philippine independence would go tariff legislation for the protection of those things you represent. Mr. LOOMIS. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Loomis. (The following resolution presented to the Texas Cottonseed Crushers' Association in convention, Dallas, Tex., January 13, 1930, by Ed Woodall, chairman tariff committee, and unanimously adopted, is made a part of the record upon request:) Whereas the United States to-day receives enormous and unlimited imports of foreign vegetable oils produced in tropical countries of largely public domains and low standards of living; and Whereas a great proportion of these foreign vegetable oils are represented in coconut oil and dried copra, from which coconut oil is produced, imported from the Philippine Islands tariff free; and Whereas the coconut industry in the Philippines belongs largely to foreign interests and not to the natives themselves, the Filipino laborer receiving for his daily wage but 18 to 20 cents, in direct competition with the southern farmer of the United States; and Whereas these foregoing conditions have brought about for the southern cotton-oil and other domestic-fat industries destructive and impossible competition to the extent that all fats are near to the pre-war price level and at least 30 per cent below the average price level of all other commodities; and Whereas the present price of cotton oil is only 64 cents per pound as against the 5-year immediate pre-war price average of 6 cents per pound, causing an unusual amount of seed to be taken back to the farms for feed and a corresponding decrease of seed reaching the mills: Therefore, be it Resolved, In justice to our own farmers to whom we owe relief in limitation of imports or preferential tariff duties, and to our own industry, that the necessity of a tariff on all these imported vegetable oils be urgently called to the attention of not only Texas representatives in both House and Senate, but also to all southern Members of Congress; and be it further Resolved, That we beseech them to support the vegetable oil tariff schedule as urged by the farm-tariff advocates and as filed with both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee; and be it further Resolved, That where applied to the Philippines we urge either a preferential rate of 25 per cent in their favor or a limitation of imports of coconut oil to 300,000,000 pounds annually, or if neither is possible, that the Philippine Islands be given their independence; and be it further Resolved, That this resolution be wired immediately to the Hon. Reed Smoot, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; to the Hon. W. C. Hawley, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; and copy mailed to each southern Member of Congress and made available to the press of the country. Adopted this 13th day of January, 1930, by the Texas Cotton Seed Crushers' Association, in session at Dallas, Tex. T. J. HARRELL, President. ED WOODALL, Chairman Tariff Committee. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frederic Brenckman, representing the National Grange. How much time do you need? Mr. BRENCKMAN. In view of the fact that this question has been pretty well covered by Mr. Gray, I think I can get through in a very short time. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I did not want to cut you off before you got through. 92109-30PT 1 8 110 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS STATEMENT OF FREDERIC BRENCKMAN, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE THE NATIONAL GRANGE Mr. BRENCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Frederic Brenckman. I am the Washington representative of the National Grange. First of all I want to read to you a resolution which was passed at the last annual session of the National Grange, which was held at Seattle, Wash., in November. It bears on this subject. Whereas, the rapidly increasing immigration from the Philippine Islands of immigrants who can never be assimilated and who are precipitating a serious social problem; and Whereas, the economic disadvantage and competition encountered by our farmers as a result of their inability to secure protection against the importation and competition of Philippine products produced under decidedly inferior and un-American standards of living; and Whereas, Congress declared in the Preamble of the Jones Act of August 29, 1916, that "it was never the intention of the people of the United States in the incipiency of the war with Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; and " Whereas, it is, as it has always been. the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein ": Therefore be it Resolved. That the National Grange urge Congress to speed the accomplishment of this purpose, that the social and economic standards of our people may be maintained. As has been shown by the two previous speakers, there are several considerations here. First of all, if we look briefly at the economic situation, we find that free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States is distinctly detrimental to our agriculture. We realize that conditions are different there from what they are here, and that they have lower costs of production. When the Ways and Means Committee began its hearings in connection with the tariff bill the farm organizations were a unit in saying that we should have a tariff on importations from the Philippine Islands just the same as though they were coming from a foreign country. But we were not unmindful of the fact that the Philippines are under the American flag, not from choice, but because the fortunes of war placed them there. and that they are entitled to fair play and a square deal. We have not forgotten that in 1776 the people of America said that taxation without representation was tyranny. So, our proposal was that while the tariff should be imposed upon importations from the Philippine Islands, just as though coming from a foreign country, those revenues should be segregated and turned back to the treasury of the islands, to make it fair; and if for any reason that proposition was not acceptable, not workable, then we favored independence for the islands. In the first place, we will take the major commodity which we import from the islands, which is sugar. That comes in direct competition with our growers of sugar beets and sugar cane. We consume 5,000,000 tons, or a little more than 5,000,000 tons of sugar in the United States each year, and we produce approximately 20 per cent of that in continental United States. Roughly, two and a fraction per cent is cane sugar, and approximately 18 per cent is beet INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 111 sugar. We have 800,000 acres of land devoted to the cultivation of sugar beets. We feel that it would be a great advantage to the American farmer if we could make the growing of sugar beets profitable. Here is a crop of which we do not have a surplus, because we produce only 20 per cent of our domestic consumption. A great part of the territory of the United States is well adapted to the growing of sugar beets. We already have the industry established in some 20 States, and there are sugar-beet factories in 19 or 20 States, and there are other States where sugar beets could be grown to advantage, provided we could compete economically. But we realize that it would be futile to try to give the American producers of sugarcane and beets protection so long as we allow unlimited quantities of sugar to be imported free of duty from the Philippine Islands. So much, for sugar. When it comes to coconut oil, which is the next most important product which is exported to the United States from the Philippines, that, again, puts the farmer of this country at a great disadvantage. The farmer is in this position: Under our protective system he has to buy his supplies in our protected market, and the only way that he can survive economically is if he can sell in the same market in which he buys. Owing to the interchangeability of these oils, if you put one of them on the free list you might just as well put them all on the free list. I often think of the cotton farmer; 47,000,000 acres of land is devoted to the cultivation of cotton, and owing to the fact that cotton is an export crop —we export from one-half to two-thirds of the cotton we produce —it is impossible to give protection to the cotton farmer. But a by-product of that industry is the cottonseed oil industry, which is a $200,000,000 industry. We have a duty of 3 cents a pound on cottonseed oil, but that duty is nullified and that protection amounts to practically nothing when we put coconut oil from the Philippines on the free list. I would like to see the producers of cottonseed oil get some protection. I would like to see those who produce soybean oil get some protection. We also want to see the producers of butter in this country have the protection to which they are entitled. So that you can see that these oils coming in from the Philippines put the farmer of the United States at a big disadvantage. We could go on and enumerate a lot of things that we import from the Philippines, but it is summed up in a nutshell, as Mr. Gray summed it up, when we say that about 80 per cent of the importations from the Philippines to the United States consist of agricultural products, and that about 80 per cent of our exports to the Philippine Islands are composed of manufactured products. It is clear, therefore, that you are creating a market for American manufactures-a good market-at the expense of American agriculture under that arrangement. Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Brenckman, a program of tariff autonomy with independence at the end of it would answer everything you are talking about, would it not? Mr. BRENCKMAN. Just how would tariff autonomy work in this case? 112 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator VANDENBERG. It permits the islands to establish their own tariff system and operate it, and then confront ours, thereby demonstrating their economic self-sufficiency, and thus their eligibility for independence. Senator JOH-NSON. Would that demonstrate it? Senator VANDENBERG. I think so. Mr. BRENCKMAN. Your idea is that we would impose a tariff against importations from the Philippinesand they would do the same thing with us? Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. Mr. BRENrCKMAN. That would be an improvement over existing conditions. Senator VANDENBERG. It would do everything you are talking about, would it not? Mr. BRENCKIMAN. Yes; so far as that is concerned. it would. I agree with that. To go now to the other side of the question, that is, the pledge that we gave to the Philippines, to give them their independence as soon as a stable government can be established, I want to say that I, for one, feel that we are pledged, on our honor, to give it to them as soon as it is safe and practical to do so. I do not think it is fair that the United States should forever hold the Philippines in subjection and not extend the Constitution to them, and let them remain under our flag whether they want to or not, if they can show that they are capable of self-government. I was particularly impressed by the testimony that was given before the committee on the opening day of these hearings by the representative of the Philippines. He brought out a lot of convincing evidence to show that the islands are now capable of self-government. It was interesting to note, for example, the fact that during the World War we withdrew all armed forces of the United States from the islands, and that there was no disturbance of any kind there; and that a larger percentage of the qualified electors of the Philippine Islands go to the polls and vote than is the case with us here in the United States; and that 5,000,000 of their people have learned the English language, and that they have a fine school system. I feel that if the question were submitted to the people of the United States as a whole, as to whether or not we should grant independence to the Philippines, there would be only one question that would be uppermost in the minds of the people, and that would be ' are they capable of self-government? And if we do grant them their independence, will they be able to maintain it, or will some stronger power swoop down upon them and gobble them up i" Senator VANDENBERG.c Is not that an economic question as well as a political question? Mr. BRENCKMAN. Yes: I think it is. Senator VANDENBERG. What do you think would happen to them if, day after to-morrow, they were given independence, and lost all our free markets? What do you think would happen to them? Mr. BRENCKMAN. Of course, they would lose our free markets but, on the other hand, they would have the right to tax our exports to INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 113 them, also. As Mr. Gray showed, the longer it goes the more serious that economic shock is going to be. Then, again, with reference to their land policy, while they seem to have taken proper safeguards to see that the land in the islands is not monopolized by a few big land owners, nevertheless, there is danger that if we hold the islands for economic exploitation, if I may use that expression, gradually a few large land owners will have the best land in the Philippine Islands. That would not be fair. It would be too much like what has taken place in Haiti. Senator VANDENBERG. Of course, that can not happen under their existing laws. Mr. BRENCKMAN. Certain things do sometimes happen, even if they are not quite according to law. For instance, in our own country, under the homestead act, and so forth, we know that some of the most valuable land in the country was first given to certain bona fide settlers, and then passed from them to the railroads and to big corporate interests. In conclusion, on this question of whether or not we ought to give them their freedom, I would like to have the privilege of inserting a little quotation in the record taken from a speech that was made in the Senate by John Sharp Williams, of Mississippi, about 20 years ago. He was talking in the abstract, on the question of freedom, and I think what he said could be very well applied to the situation that now exists with reference to the Philippines. He said: God Almighty seems to be the only being anywhere who is not afraid of freedom and not afraid to give it to his creatures. He gives it to us to such an extent that he lets us go wrong if we will-even to that extent. From the beginning religious bigots have been afraid of it, political bigots have been afraid of it, and industrial bigots have been afraid of it. And yet, whenever it comes, we find it stimulates human enterprise, human intelligence, human ambition, and human industry to such an extent that it more than compensates for what seems to be the plain and palpable and obvious immediate losses by it. STATEMENT OF W. C. HUSHING, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Mr. HUSHING. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is W. C. Hushing. I am legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor. The American Federation of Labor for almost 32 years has been in favor of absolute independence for the Philippines. I propose to tell you why. I can best do this by quoting very briefly from our records. The American Federation of Labor in 1895 and 1896 indorsed the struggle of the Cubans for freedom and in 1898 declared: Our duty toward Cuba and its unfortunate people is clear. America's sons fought and gave their lives to win for them their freedom and independence, and we mistake much the honor and good faith of our people if they will lend their countenance to any movement that will rob the Cuban patriots of that liberty which they prize so highly themselves. Organized labor's attitude admits of no no question and is summed up in these words: " Keep faith." During this same year the Philippines were ceded to the United States and President Gompers made a report to the 1898 convention 114 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS that there was some apprehension as to what disposition would be made of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. The convention declared: We share the apprehension of our President (Gompers) regarding the proposed disposition and government of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. We see in them a departure from the time-honored traditions of our Nation and a disregard of the warnings of the fathers of this country. who. looking into the future, saw and realized the dangers to which a policy of imperialism, such as that which is now proposed, would bring us. As citizens we protest against forcing our system of government upon an unwilling people. We are here to-day presenting arguments in favor of Philippine independence which proves that the fears of the American Federation of Labor were well grounded and that it foresaw in 1898 what has since become a fact. The Declaration of Independence of the United States declares, among other things, thatAll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In consideration of this declaration it is difficult to understand how the United States can consistently hold the Philippine nation in subjection. The Filipinos are held as a subject nation because they are not a free-born white people, native Africans or of African descent and only these are eligible for citizenship. For many years the American Federation of Labor favored independence of the Philippines on the above-mentioned broad grounds but it was not many years until it was discovered that articles manufactured in the Philippines were being sent into the United States free of duty making it impossible for United States employers to meet the competition, therefore, this resolution was adopted at the 1924 convention: Resolved, That we respectfully petition and urge the Congress of the United States to forthwith grant the earnest prayers and petitions of the Filipinosthe right to exercise in full liberty, freedom, and self-government. In 1927 the American Federation of Labor adopted the following: Resolved by the American Federation of Labor in forty-seventh annual convention assembled at Los Angeles, Caif., That we heartily favor the immediate grant of independence to the Filipino people. In 1928 the following was adopted by the American Federation of Labor convention: Whereas the desire for cheap labor has acted like a cancer in American private and public life, destroying American ideals and preventing the development of a nation based upon racial unity; and Whereas in turn this desire has exploited the Negro, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Hindus, as in turn each has been regulated or excluded; and Whereas the Malays of the Philippines were in 1924 omitted from the general policy excluding all who can not become citizens; and Whereas there are a sufficient number of Filipinos ready and willing to come to the United States to create a race problem equal to that already here; and Whereas nothing short of exclusion can prevent the consummation of the desire for cheap labor and its willingness to come; and Whereas the Welch bill (H. R. 13900) is designed to and will prevent the Filipinos from being imported: Therefore be it INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 115 Resolved, By the American Federation of Labor in convention assembled, that we indorse said bill and urge its immediate passage; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the proper committee of Congress. Information was given the convention that sooner or later American labor would have to meet the competition of Filipino labor. It was said that there were 5,000 Filipinos in Hawaii and 80,000 in California. As the Filipino is neither citizen nor eligible to citizenship, he has a peculiar status. There are 13,000,000 Filipinos in their native land and every one of them, with the exception of those who have contagious diseases, may transfer his residence to anywhere in the United States at his own sweet will. The immigration bill of 1924 excluded the Japanese as well as the Asiatics in the barred zone. But it permits residents of the Philippine Islands to come under the jurisdiction of the United States. In 1929 the convention adopted the following: Whereas at the time of the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by our Government, statements were made by governmental authorities that our con1trnl was temporary; and Whereas the United States courts held them to be Asiatics and not eligible for citizenship; and Whereas the Filipinos can not be assimilated with our people; and Whereas we believe that every people must face their own problems without interference from any other people; and Whereas the overwhelming sentiment of the Filipinos is for their independence: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the American Federation of Labor assembled in its fortyninth annual convention at Toronto urges upon Congress the granting of complete independence to the Philippine Islands. The 1929 convention also adopted the following: Whereas the question of Filipino immigration has become a leading issue upon the Pacific coast; and Whereas we find this immigration is encouraged by transportation companies and employers of cheap labor; and Whereas both male and female workers in various occupations are being replaced by this class of labor; and Whereas our experience on the Pacific coast has been that this problem is not only economic but is a grave social and moral question; and Whereas upon the authority of health officials it is declared that the mode and conditions of life in the Philippines tend to destroy the vitality and stamina of these people, making them easy victims of various contagious diseases, as evidenced by the recent epidemic of spinal meningitis, pneumonia, and tuberculosis: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this convention reaffirms the action of the 1928 New Orleans session on this subject and urges upon Congress the speedy passage of legislation as expressed in the Welch bill (H. R. 13900), introduced in a recent session of the United States Congress. It might be well at this point to tell of the assisted immigration from the Philippines. The executive council at the 1929 convention made the following report: 3 The executive council urges the convention to take a strong stand on the question of immigration and insist that immigration from the Latin countries be reduced to a minimum. During the fall of 1928 posters were displayed in Manila and other cities urging Filipinos to come to the United States to enjoy the great prosperity existing here. Great numbers rushed to the boats to come to the United States. Scores of them died on the way fron spinal meningitis and other diseases. They were thinly clad, traveled in the steerage, and when a cold climate was reached they became ill. Many were buried in the ocean, and when the vessels arrived in the United States the passengers still alive were placed in quarantine. 116 INDEPENIDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS President Green took the matter up with the War and Navy Departments, the Public Health Service, Senators from the coast States, the Labor Department, and used every other means to stop the Filipinos from coming here. All of the public officialc interviewed said they realized the danger, but that under the laws nothing could be done, that everybody was helpless, as Filipinos are neither citizens nor aliens. Nevertheless the Public Health Service, which is to be commended, investigated the matter thoroughly and recommended to the President of the United States that no persons should come from China, including Hong Kong or the Philippine Islands. because they were subject to malignant diseases, unless permitted to do so by the Secretary of State. President Hoover issued an Executive order to that effect, and the indications are that it will remain in force for a long time. A representative of the Philippine Islands has an office in Washington, and he conceived the idea of having the Filipinos in this country work in the beet fields. The railroads made concessions as to fares and many of the Filipinos were shipped to work in the beet fields. At the same time circulars were distributed in San Francisco calling upon Mexicans and Filipinos, single or married, to go to the beet fields of Iowa, Minnesota, and other States. Information has reached us that this plan was originated by the American Beet Sugar Co. Since that report was written, in August of last year, I understand that the gates have been opened again and hundreds of Filipinos are coming into the country. We have the Mexican problem on the way and the addition of the Filipino problem portends great danger to the standard of living of the American wage earner. The CHAIRMAN. Your theory, Mr. Hushing, is that as soon as the Philippine Islands were granted their independence, then their citizens would come under the same exclusion act that is now applicable to all other Asiatics. Mr. HUSHING. Yes, sir. But understand, Senator, when we first stood for their independence, it was not on that ground. Senator HAWES. But, Mr. Hushing, aside from that fact, they have an equal status with American citizens coming in now. Mr. HUSHING. After they get here. Senator HAWES. If they were granted independence, their status would immediately change and they would be placed on the same basis as all foreign nations of the world. Mr. HUSHING. That was what I understood the chairman to ask me. The CHAIRMAN. Not all nations, Senator, but only the Asiatic nations, because we permit other nations to have quotas. Senator HAWES. No. They ask that they be given it under a quota, but there is no restriction now against these people in any way. Mr. HUSHING. Not at all, unless it is something on the ground of health. Senator HAWES. It is uncontrolled at the present time. Mr. HUSHING. Quite true. Senator HAWES. That situation does not exist in our relations with any other country in the world. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 117 Mr. HUSHING. That is quite true. I have cited the acts of the American Federation of Labor conventions in order to make it clear that we have not become recently interested in this matter on account of the pending tariff bill, and in support of this statement I quote from our convention proceeding of 1913: Convention concurred in a protest by the cigar makers against the competition of oriental handworkers in that trade in the Philippines, as citizens of this country could not successfully compete with their products imported into the United States. It also declared that nothing in the protest should be considered of benefit to a protective tariff, low tariff, a tariff for revenue only, or any kind of tariff, but an indorsement of the complaint of the cigar makers against the cheapest labor in the world. To sum up why we favor Philippine independence: First, on the broad ground that it is absolutely wrong under our form of government to hold a nation of 11,000.000 people as subjects. Second, because although permitted to enter continental United States, they can not become citizens. Third, their competition with American citizens. We sincerely hope that this committee will recommend that Philippine independence be granted immediately. Senator VANDENBERG. You are familiar with the fact, of course, that when we gave Cuba her freedom we retained certain responsibility, which ultimately resulted in subsequent intervention. Mr. HUSHING. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. DO yOU think the American Federation of Labor would be willing to retain that sort of responsibility toward the Philippines? Mr. HUSHING. I do not know that they have ever expressed themselves on it, but I can not see that there would be any objection to it. Without giving it full consideration, that would be my answer. Senator KING. You mean for the same reasons that we have intervened in Cuba, to restore order? Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. Mr. HUSHING. Yes; for those reasons. Senator HAWES. Will you place in the record, if you do not have it at hand now, a comparison of the wage scales both in the manufacturing and agricultural fields, as between Philippine labor and United States labor? Mr. HUSHING. Senator, I have not those figures at hand, but I will insert them in the record afterwards. There is one other thing I may say, though, and that is that at the time the cigar makers' protest came up I understand the cigar makers in the Philippines were receiving a salary of $2 a week. Senator HAWES. What do American cigar makers receive, approximately? Mr. HUSHING. $60. There is one other thing I would like permission to do. There has been so much said on the tariff this morning that I would like to make the position of the American Federation of Labor clear on that subject. I appeared before the Ways and Means Committee of the House, and a subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee for one of our affiliated organizations, and at that time I endeavored to make our position clear. We do not take any side on the tariff, 118 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS either for a high tariff or for a low tariff. We have 105 national and international organizations affiliated withb our organization. Whenever one of them is interested in the tariff, they put their case up and the Federation considers it on its merits. If we are in favor of their proposition we support it, and, of course, if we are not in favor of it we do not. Sometimes thev want a decrease in the tariff. For instance, the diamond workers in the bill being now considered asked a reduction. Others will want an increase. So, as an organization, we endeavor to maintain absolute neutrality on the tariff. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The hearing is closed. The next hearing will be announced through the press. (The memoranda relative to wage scales referred to by Mr. Hushing is herewith printed, as follows:) WAGES IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The following relative to wages in the Philippine Islands is taken from the annual report of the Governor General of the Philippine Islands for 1927, as published by the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives under date of May 24, 1928. (H. Doc. No. 325, 70th Cong., 1st sess, p. 297.) WAGES "From the data on wages obtained by the (Philippine) bureau of labor from employers, it appears that labor, as a general rule, is not well paid. In Manila, 33 per cent of the laborers employed are paid less than 50 cents (American money) a day and over 80 per cent receive less than $1 (American money) per day. The wages of laborers employed in industries in the Provinces are much lower than those in Manila. Over 50 per cent receive less than 50 cents. In agriculture, 74 per cent of the laborers receive less than 50 cents. OTHER DATA ON WAGES IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS A pamphlet entitled " Facts About the Philippines," issued by the PhilippineAmerican Chamber of Commerce, 33 Liberty Street, New York City, gives the following as to wages in the Philippines during 1922: Daily minimum Agricultural laborers --- —-------------------------------------------- $0. 30 Embroiderers --- —-------------------------------------. 25 Fishermen -----------------------------------------------------------.50 Hatters ------------------------------------------------------------—. 50 Lumbermen. --- —----------------------------------------------------.30 Miners --- —----------------------------------------------------------.87 Printers -----— _-_ --- —------------------------------------------- *70 Sawyers_ ________75 Masons and bricklayers --- —-----------------------------------------.60 Mechanics ----------------------------------------------------------- 1.20 Blacksmiths -. --- —---------------------------------------— _.65 Unclassified laborers --- —---------------------------------------------.20 (Whereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., the hearing was adjourned sine die.) x Independence for the Philippine Islands HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 204 A BILL PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS S. 3108 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND TO FORM A FREE AND INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. J. Res. 113 JOINT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO CALL A CONFERENCE ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION S. Res. 199 RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF TARIFF AUTONOMY FOR THE PHILIPPINES IN CONNECTION WITH HEARINGS RELATIVE TO THEIR INDEPENDENCE S. 3379 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND FORM A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND TO - PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE SAME Part 2 FEBRUARY 3, 1930 Printed for the use of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92109 WASHINGTON: 1930 AL COMMIr'TTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION HIRAM BINGHAM, Connecticut, Chairman HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada. ARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota. EDWIN S. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. JESSE H. METCALF, Rhode Island. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland. GUY D. GOFF, West Virginia. HARRY B. HAWES, Missouri. BRONSON M. CUTTING, New Mexico. HENRY M. BARRY, Clerk. II CONTENTS Statement of- Page James H. Baker, representing Franklin Baker Co., Hoboken, N. J.-_ 206 C. Rogers Brown, of Brown-Edwards Co. (Inc.), 40 Rector Street, New York ---— _ -------------— __ 154 J. F. Comins, representing Kummer, Comins & Co. (Inc.), 40 Worth Street, New York -------------------- -_-_ ---- -- 209 J. D. Craig, of Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), Buffalo, N. Y._ --- — 162 Howard Kellogg, president, Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), Buffalo, N. Y --— 144 N. ~- ---- ---------------— ~ --- —------------------------ 14 A. G. Kempf, vice president Neuss, Hesslein & Co., 75 Worth Street, New York — -- ---- ---------- 216 Charles D. Orth, president Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, New York --- —---- — _ --- 197 Porfirio U. Sevilla, Fort Hamilton, N. Y --- —------------ -- 126 Vincent Vandervoort, secretary Watson Machine Co., Paterson, N. J. 218 III - I INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMlMrITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call of the chairman, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate Commerce, the Capitol, at 10 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Metcalf, Vandenberg, Broussard, Tydings, and Hawes. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The first witness this morning — Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Chairman, before the witnesses appear will you permit me to put this new bill, S. 3379, in the record so that the record will be complete? The CHAIRMAN. Bill S. 3379, recently introduced by Senator Vandenberg and explained by him on the floor of the Senate, will be placed in the record at this point. (The bill is printed in full herewith, as follows:) [S. 3379, Seventy-first Congress, second session] A BILL To enable the people of the Philippine Islands to adopt a, constitution and form a government for the Philippine Islands and to provide for the future political status of the same Whereas the act entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands," approved August 29, 1916, declared it to be the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; and Whereas it is the purpose of the people of the United States immediately to test the political and economic eligibility of the Philippine Islands for the complete independence thus promised; and Whereas it is the further purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands when this test is met: Therefore Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the people of the Philippine Islands are authorized as provided in this act, to adopt a constitution and to form thereunder a government t6 be known as the "Commonwealth of the Philippines," which shall exercise jurisdiction over all the territory ceded to the United States Government by the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Spain on the 11th day of April, 1899, the boundaries of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with those islands embraced in the treaty between Spain and the United States concluded at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900. 119 120 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SEC. 2. The Legislature of the Philippine Islands shall draft the constitution and shall provide for its submission to the voters for approval or disapproval under conditions prescribed by the legislature which will permit the people a full and free expression of their views. The Govenor General of the Philippine Islands may extend the regular session of the legislature for the necessary time to accomplish this purpose, or he may call a special session of the legislature for this purpose, and such session may sit for the necessary time. The session shall begin not later than sixty days after the passage of this act. SEC. 3. The constitution adopted shall be republican in form and adequate to secure a stable, orderly, and free government and shall contain provisions to the effect that, pending the independence of the Philippine Islands(a) All citizens of the Commonwealth shall owe allegiance to the United States. (b) Every officer of the Commonwealth shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take and subscribe an oath of office, declaring, among other things, that he recognizes and accepts the supreme authority of and will maintain true faith and allegiance to the United States. (c) Absolute toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant or religious organization shall ever be molested in person or property on account of religious belief or mode of worship. (d) Property owned by the United States, cemeteries, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands. buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (e) Trade relations between the Commonwealth and the United States shall be upon the basis prescribed in section 6. (f) The public debt of the Commonwealth and its subordinate branches shall not exceed limits now or hereafter fixed by the Congress of the United States: and no loans shall be contracted in foreign countries without the approval of the President of the United States. (g) The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Philippine government, its Provinces, municipalities, and instrumentalities, valid and subsisting at the time of the adoption of the constitution, shall be assumed and paid by the Commonwealth. (h) Provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of an adequate system of public schools conducted in the English language. (i) No part of the public revenues shall be used for the stpport of any sectarian or denominational school, college, university, church, or charitable institution. (j) Acts affecting the currency or coinage laws shall not become law until approved by the President of the United States. (k) Foreign affairs shall be exclusively in the control of the United States. (1) All acts passed by the legislature of the Commonwealth shall be reported to the Congress of the United States. (m) The Commonwealth recognizes the right of the United States to maintain armed forces in the Commonwealth, and, upon order of the President. to call into the service of such armed forces all military forces organized by the Commonwealth. (n) Appeals to Federal courts of the United States shall be as now or may be hereafter provided by act of Congress. (o) The United States may exercise the right to interevene for the preservation of the government of the Commonwealth and for the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and to the discharge of its obligations. (p). The authority of the United States commissioner to the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as provided in this act, or may hereafter be provided by Congress, shall be recognized. SEC. 4. When the constitution has been adopted in compliance with the provisions of this act and has been duly ratified by the people of the Philippine Islands, a certified copy shall be submitted to the President of the United States and to Congress for approval. If the President and Congress approves the constitution, or if the President approves and Congress fails to disapprove it within three months of legislative session from the time of its submission, the President shall certify such facts to the Governor General of the Philippine Islands, who shall within 30 days after the receipt of such notification from the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 121 President, issue a proclamation for the election of officers of the Commonwealth. The election shall take place not earlier than two months nor later than four months after the proclamation by the Governor General ordering such election. When the election of the officers provided for under the constitution has been held and the results determined the Governor General of the Philippine Islands shall certify the result of the election to the President of the United States, who shall thereupon issue a proclamation announcing the results of the election, and upon the issuance of such proclamation by the President the existing Philippine government shall terminate and the Commonwealth shall enter upon its rights, privileges, powers, and duties as provided under the constitution. If the President or Congress of the United States disapprove the constitution adopted and ratified in pursuance of the provisions of this act, then such fact, together with the objections, shall forthwith be communicated to the legislature, which shall consider said objections and again submit the result of its deliberations to the President and Congress of the United States. SEC. 5. The government of the Philippine Islands shall provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of government to the Commonwealth. SEC. 6. Trade relations between the United States and the Commonwealth shall be upon the following basis: (1) During the first and second years after the termination of the existing Philippine government all articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands, or coming into the Philippine Islands from the United States, shall be admitted in accordance with the law in force at the time of such termination. (2) During the third and fourth years after the termination of the existing Philippine government there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands and upon all articles coming into the Philippine Islands from the United States 25 per centum of the duties which are required by the respective Governments to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries. (3) During the fifth and sixth years after the termination of the existing Philippine government there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands and upon all articles coming into the Philippine Islands from the United States 50 per centum of the duties which are required by the respective Governments to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries. (4) During the seventh and eighth years after the termination of the existing Philippine government there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands and upon all articles coming into the Philippine Islands from the United States 75 per centum of the duties which are required by the respective governments to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries. (5) After the expiration of the eighth year after the termination of the existing Philippine government and until the Philippine Islands become independent or until Congress otherwise provides, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands and upon all articles coming into the Philippine Islands from the United States the rates of duty which are required by the respective governments to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries. SEC. 7. Prior to the date of Philippine independence every duly adopted amendment to the constitution of the Commonwealth shall be submitted to the President and Congress of the United States for approval. If the President and Congress approve the amendment, or if the President approves and Congress fails to disapprove such amendment within one year from the time of its submission, the amendment shall take effect as a part of such constitution. SEC. 8. The chief executive of the Commonwpalth shall make an annual report to the President and Congress of the United States of the proceedings and operations of the government of the Commonwealth and shall make such other reports as the President or Congress may request. SEC. 9. The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States commissioner to the Commonwealth of the Philippines, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the President or until his successor is chosen and qualified. He shall be the representative of the President of the United States in the Commonwealth of the Philippines and shall be recognized as such by the Commonwealth and by the commanding officers of the military forces of the United States and by all civil officials of the United 122 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS States in the Commonwealth. The President of the United States shall have authority to suspend the taking effect of or the operation of any law, contract, or executive order of the Commonwealth, which in his opinion seems likely to result in a failure of the government of the Commonwealth to fulfill its contracts, or to meet its bonded indebtedness and interest thereon or to provide for its sinking funds or which seems likely to impair the reserves for the protection of the currency of the Commonwealth or may create international complications. The President shall, in any such case, finally determine whether or not such law, contract, or executive order shall go into or remain in effect. If the Commonwealth fails to pay any of its bonded or other indebtedness or the interest thereon when due or to fulfill any of its contracts, the United States commissioner shall immediately report the facts to the President, who may thereupon direct the commissioner to take over the customs offices and administration of the same, administer the same, and apply such part of the revenue received therefrom as may be necessary for the payment of such overdue indebtedness or for the fulfillment of such contracts. The United States commissioner shall annually, and at such other times as the President may require, render an official report to the President and Congress of the United States. He shall perform such additional duties and functions as may be lawfully delegated to him from time to time by the President. The first United States commissioner appointed under this act shall take office upon the inauguration of the government of the Commonwealth. He shall be paid by the United States an annual salary of $18,000, and $12,000 for expenses. SEC. 10. The Philippine Government created under this act shall provide for the selection of a Resident Commissioner to the United States, who shall hold office for a term of four years beginning with the 4th day of March following his selection, and who shall be entitled to an official recognition as such by all departments upon presentation to the President of credentials signed by the chief executive of said islands. He shall have a seat in the House of Representatives of the United States, with the right of debate, but without the right of voting. His salary and expenses shall be fixed and paid by the Commonwealth. Until a Resident Commissioner is selected and qualified under this section, existing law governing the appointment of Resident Commissioners from the Philippine Islands shall continue in effect. SEC. 11. Upon the expiration of ten years after the termination of the existing Philippine government the people of the Philippine Commonwealth shall vote for or against the independence of the Philippines. The legislature shall provide for the time and manner of an election for such purpose to be held as soon as practicable after the expiration of such ten-year period. The qualified voters of the Philippine Commonwealth shall be entitled to vote at such election. If a majority of the votes cast shall be against Philippine independence the status of the Philippine Islands shall continue as herein provided until otherwise defined by Act of Congress. If a majority of the votes cast are in favor of Philippine independence the chief executive of the Commonwealth shall so report to the President of the United States. The President shall, as soon as practicable, submit such report to the Congress, together with his recommendations thereon. Unless the Congress, within three months of legislative session after the submission of the recommendations of the President, adopts, by two-thirds vote of each House, a concurrent resolution disapproving Philippine independence, then the President shall forthwith recognize the Commonwealth of the Philippines as a free and independent nation under the constitution then in force for the Philippine Commonwealth: Provided, That the constitution has been previously amended to include such articles as the President deems necessary for the settlement and adjustment of all property rights and other relations between the United States and the Philippine Islands and for the protection of all personal and property rights of citizens of the United States in the Philippine Islands, including provision for incorporation of any of such articles in a permanent treaty with the United States. Upon such recognition the President shall thereupon permanently withdraw and surrender all right of possession, jurisdiction, and sovereignty exercised by the United States in and over the Territory and people of the Philippine Islands. SEC. 12. Said Philippine Commonwealth, on becoming independent of the United States, assumes all continuing obligations assumed by the United INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 123 States under the treaty of peace with Spain ceding said Philippine Islands to the United States. SEC. 13. If the Congress of the United States by a two-thirds vote of each House disapproves of Philippine independence the status of the Commonwealth shall continue as herein provided until otherwise defined by act of Congress, with a view to subsequent independence. SEC. 14. All laws or parts of laws applicable to the Philippine Islands not in conflict with any of the provisions of this act are hereby continued in force and effect until altered, amended, or repealed in accordance with existing law by the Philippine Legislature, or by the legislative authority of the Commonwealth, or by act of Congress of the United States. THE CHAIRMAN. Senator Vandenberg, would you like to say anything about the bill here? Senator VANDENBERG. No. The statement in the Congressional Record suffices. The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to have the statement in the Record appear at this point in the hearings? Senator VANDENBERG. I think that would be a good idea. The CHAIRMAN. The statement by Senator Vandenberg when he introduced the bill will be printed in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, I do not desire needlessly to precipitate another discussion of the question of Philippine independence at the present time; but, inasmuch as this vital matter is now pending for decision before the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, under promise to report to Congress during the present session, if any new proposals are to be submitted for the consideration of the Senate and the country, they must be submitted now. It has occurred to me repeatedly, in my study of the problem as a member of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, that some new proposal must be submitted if the cause of Philippine Independence is to have a fair chance in this Congress. So great a cause should not be left wholly at the mercy of proposals for which there is little or no chance. Such proposals are futile gestures. Therefore, I am going to submit to the Senate this morning a new bill, which, for the time being, I shall ask to have referred to the committee; but for the information of the Senate and the country I am anxious, to make a brief statement regarding its philosophy, its intent, its purport, and what I conceive to be its superlative advantage to the cause of Philippine independence and its warranty of earliest possible success. I want to repeat that in my judgment the measures now pending relative to this issue do not give the cause of Philippine independence a full, fair chance. The two measures pending are these: First, the so-called King bill, introduced by the distinguished junior Senator from Utah, proposing immediate independence for the Philippine Islands. The junior Senator from Utah is an old and dependable friend of the cause of Philippine independence; and in nothing that I say do I quarrel with his very splendid and earnest motives. The other proposition now pending is the joint resolution submitted by the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Bingham], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, which calls for a mixed commission of Americans and Filipinos who shall sit next fall in Manila to review the problem all over again and resume the 30-year-old search for truth. Mr. President, I am very certain that these two proposals do not satisfy a large body of public opinion in the United States. They do not satisfy my own conscience. I do not believe we are justified in voting summary independence in the absence of indisputable proof that the adventure will permanently succeed. Therefore, I say again that the pending proposals are faulty in their failure to provide these proofs. The so-called King bill, demanding immediate independence, would require us to guess as to the economic and political self-sufficiency of the Philippine Islands. It would rely upon speculation and-prophecy for the warranty which 124 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS we must possess as to the stability of the government of the islands and as to the economic self-sufficiency of the islands when we turn them loose upon their own resources. Many of us feel that the decision is too important, both to the Philippine Islands and to the United States, to proceed in the face of such hazards. Many of us favoring freedom at the earliest possible moment are conscientiously forced to decline to guess the problem out, because when we finally leave the Philippines we must leave for keeps, and we must not leave with a Platt amendment in the Constitution of the new Philippine government. We must, in other words, know precisely what we do. The joint resolution proposed by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Bingham] is open to much the same objection. While it presumes ultimately to substitute facts for speculation in determining these elements that must be present before the Philippines are safely given their independence, nevertheless it does not accomplish this net result. It can not do so in the very nature of the case. Why not? Because there can be no present facts which suffice. There can be no adequate information in advance. The only adequate information that the Congress and the country can have is information that grows out of actual experience. Optimistic anticipations alone will not suffice. Opinions are not evidence. How could anybody say in advance that the Philippines successfully can confront the tariff wall of the United States, for instance, and rise above that wall with their commercial exports, when they never have had a moment's experience in confronting that handicap upon their external trade? How can anybody say that they are economically self-sufficient until they have a full, free, fair chance to prove that they are self-sufficient? They will confront a condition, not a theory. So, in sound process, must we. What, then, is needed? To my way of thinking, the thing that is needed is an intermediate period of practically complete autonomy, both political and economic, permitting a laboratory test, as it were, upon the factors which must be resolved favorably by us if we are entitled to support the great adventure of Philippine independence. In other words, we must know the realities. Thus, and thus only, will the cause of independence have a fair show, either in Congress now or in the subsequent destiny of the Philippine Islands themselves. I speak for these realities. Therefore, Mr. President, I am introducing this bill this morning. It proposes quasi independence for a probationary decade. It creates immediate political and economic autonomy which should lead to an effectual climax in 1940. It permits the development of self-sufficiencies in the Philippine Islands and the demonstration of their adequate existence to justify the thing we are asked to do, and which we ought to do at the earliest possible moment. It substitutes realities for conjecture. It immediately establishes the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands, and promises that its success through 10 years of trial shall produce the complete withdrawal of American sovereignty. It may be said that we have made promises before; but, Mr. President, I repeat that promises lacking constructive specifications are mere gestures, and I am fearful that the movement for complete independence pending now in the Congress will be just one more such gesture. Here is a program which is the culmination of these promises, with specifications and a warranty for their fulfillment. It is substance, not shadow. It may seem superficially like another postponement of independence. But actually it will hasten independence. This is a situation, as proven for many years past, in which attempts at haste lead to nothing but cumulative delay. The surest plan in the long run will be the speediest. Mr. President, I would not have the presumption to offer this formula solely upon my own responsibility. It is born originally of far more formidable credentials. It it a structure originally sketched in 1924 by the then Secretary of War, Hon. John W. Weeks. At his request, a bill drawn along these lines, and identified as S. 3373, was introduced into the Sixty-eighth Congress by the distinguished senior Senator from California [Mr. Johnson]. I have taken the structure proposed by the late Secretary Weeks, and I have faithfully followed it in the submission of this new proposal; but I have refined and amplified it in a number of important directions which are of advantage to the cause of Philippine independence, in the light of some of the problems that have developed since 1924. Secretary Weeks proposed a probationary period of 25 years, I am proposing a probationary period of 10 years. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 125 The proposal of Secretary Weeks did not touch the question of tariff autonomy at all. Therefore it did not permit this Commonwealth of the Philippines a fair opportunity to fit itself during the probationary period into the protected markets of the world, nor to defend itself against free competition with the world's trade. I am injecting progressive tariff autonomy into this probation period with a ratio of duties progressively increasing during the decade, so that at the end of the decade the Philippines will have not only demonstrated their economic independence and their economic self-sufficiency, but will be ready when they become wholly independent to face the world on a basis which will warrant the expectation that they can permanently stand. Indeed, we and they will have this factual assurance. I have provided a final plebiscite in the Islands. I have provided a limited opportunity for a veto in the Congress in the event that the adventure has glaringly failed to succeed. But all the presumptions run in favor of the islands and their independence. In a general way I think I have submitted an amplification of the Weeks plan which ought to challenge the favorable consideration of those who are doubtful as to whether or not the Philippine Islands are now or ever can be equal to these responsibilities of self-government. I have provided the specific means by which all such doubts may be resolved. Of course, some one will immediately say, What if the 10-year experiment fails? If it fails, then it is demonstrated that prior precipitate independence most certainly would have failed, and we have no right to launch these far Pacific wards upon a failure. Better it is that failure, if failure there is to be, should be known before it is too late. So vital a matter must not be left to chance. At worst, if the glorious adventure during the probationary decade should fail, the Philippine Islands will be infinitely nearer the reality of their ultimate goal, because they will be just that much further along the road toward the erection of their own adequate and efficient, economic, and political institutions. At worst, they will gain instead of lose. On the other hand, if the adventure succeeds-as I believe it would-the Filipino dream comes true. There is no doubt in my mind about the obligation of the American people in this respect. No one can deny the obligation. The Jones Act of August 29, 1916, specifically promises that as soon as stable government can be established we are to withdraw our sovereignty from these far Pacific wards. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. VANDENBERG. I prefer not to yield until I have completed my statement, but if the Senator wishes, I will. Mr. BINGHAM. The statement which the Senator has made, if it goes unchallenged, as it so often has, leads to misunderstanding. If the Senator is as familiar with the history of that bill in the House as I believe him to be, he will remember that there was a very strenuous effort to put just that promise into the act itself, and it was defeated in the House of Representatives. The inference was put into the preamble because the Congress did not wish to put into the Jones Act what the Senator has just said the Jones Act contained. Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, I am quite aware of that legislative history. The fact remains that Congress indisputably has led the Filipinos to believe that they are to have their independence as soon as stable government is established. The promise, furthermore, is written into numerous pronouncements by both Republican and Democratic Presidents of the United States. Independence is not established, however, purely upon the basis of political tests. Economic tests are necessary in addition. Mr. HAwEs. Mr. President The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fess in the chair). Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. VANDENBERG. Yes; I yield. Mr. HAWES. Before passing away from the declaration of autonomy, it is a fact that on the only occasion on which Congress did speak upon the subject of Philippine Independence it did declare that they should ultimately be given their independence. It was in the preamble, but it is a clear-cut statement from the Government of the United States. No matter what debate may have preceded that declaration, it is there, so that a child may understand it, and it is the only expression ever given by the American Congress, and it is so clear that it can not be disputed. 126 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his observations. I do not want to yield further, because I am sensible of the fact that I am intruding upon the tariff time this morning, and my sole purpose is to submit the bill to the Senate with a sufficient statement to invite the ultimate consideration of Senators and of the country. It can be debated later at a more appropriate time. I have said that in my mind there is no doubt regarding our ultimate obligation. Neither is there any doubt in my mind about our constitutional power to validate the promise we have made. I again call the attention of Senators to page 2698 of the Congressional Record, which contains a very splendid and illuminating brief upon this subject prepared by the Legislative Counsel of the Senate. I have no doubt regarding the obligation, no doubt regarding our constitutional ability to meet it, but I entertain the doubt expressed a few mornings ago by the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho. I have his doubt as to whether independence ever will be given the Philippine Islands within this generation, and I emphatically share it if we proceed solely on the theory that they are to be precipitated some day into independence almost overnight. If we postpone all intermediate steps and persist in waiting until Congress is ready to grant summary independence, then in my judgment the Senator from Idaho is correct, and it is possible that the Filipinos never will be free. I am convinced that the best friend to independence is the friend who looks facts squarely in the face. I can not vote for summary independence. I will not vote for independence simply to satisfy our own expedient economic needs; although one is, indeed, blind not to see that otherwise we face inscrutable economic perplexities. I will not vote to penalize the Filipino so long as he continues to live under the American flag. But I will vote to enlarge the measure of home rule in the Philippine Islands as the final chapter in the prelude to their attainment of complete independence which shall be both beneficent and permanent. It is in this spirit that I submit the following bill. I present it as a philosophy of action and procedure rather than as a detailed program of action. I have no pride of opinion in its detail. So gigantic an undertaking, involving the liberties of millions of people committed to our mercy and discretion, will require the consultation of many minds, but I dare to believe that it points the manner of the only effectual answer to this problem. I ask that the bill be printed in the record for the information of the Senate and of the country, and referred to the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs. The CHAIRMAN. The first witness to be called this morning is Hon. Newton W. Gilbert, former vice governor of the Philippines, and at one time acting governor. (No response.) Mr. Gilbert not being present, the next witness is Mr. Porfirio U. Sevilla, of the Philippines. STATEMENT OF PORFIRIO U. SEVILLA, FORT HAMILTON, N. Y. (TEMPORARY) (CANDELARIA, TAYABOS, P. I.) The CHAIRMAN. What is your residence, Mr. Sevilla? Mr. SEVILLA. Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. You are residing in New York at present? Mr. SEVILLA. I am residing at New York at present. I am enrolled in the law course at Columbia University. Senator HAwES. May I ask the witness one or two questions. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator HAwEs. You say you are a lawyer? Mr. SEVILLA. I am not a lawyer. I am studying to be a lawyer. Senator HAWES. But you are not a lawyer? Mr. SEVILLA. I am not a lawyer. Senator HAWES. You are just studying to be a lawyer. The CHAIRMAN. Are you a graduate of the university at Manila? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 127 Mr. SEVILLA. The university at Manila; second year of law. The CHAIRMAN. You took two years of law at Manila,? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator HAWES. You were formerly employed by the Department of Justice? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. How did you happen to lose your position? Mr. SEVILLA. I did not lose my position. I resigned voluntarily. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Senator, we will let the witnessSenator HAWES. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEVILLA. I am answering his question. Senator HAWES. That is not according to the information I received. Your resignation was requested because of disobedience to instructions and because your attitude was considered improper by the department. Is that correct Mr. SEVILLA. Well, you can read my statement. If there is anything there that shows I was forced to resign, I would like to see it. Senator HAWES. Your resignation was requested. Mr. SEVILLA. Let us not argue that. All right-as you have been informed. Senator HAWES. Are you familiar with what is called International House in New York? Mr. SEVILLA. Oh, yes. Senator HAWES. Do you know a Mr. Neil Sanford? Mr. SEVILLA. He is superintendent of the International House. Senator HAWES. Did you represent to Mr. Sanford, in making application for admission, that your father was the governor of a Province in the Philippine Islands? Mr. SEVILLA. I did not. Senator HAWES. You did not? Mr. SEVILLA. I did not. Senator HAWES. So that if he makes that statement in writing, he makes a false statement? Mr. SEVILLA. He makes a false statement. If you can find any statement that I wrote to that effect, I will agree with you. I know, from the distinguished Senator, that some of my political opponents are trying to discredit me. I would never concede what you are asking me, Senator. That is really a personal inquiry. I appear here this morning before this committee, and am met with your personal inquiry about myself, but, neverthelessSenator HAWES. Then you deny that you made that statement? Mr. SEVILLA. I deny it, Senator. Senator HAWES. What is your present source of income in the United States? Mr. SEVILLA. I am only a hard-working boy. Senator HAWES. All right. What is your income? Where do you derive it from? Mr. SEVILLA. Well, as I say, I am working. Senator HAWES. Working for whom? Mr. SEVILLA. For my own living. Senator HAWES. Who was the last man from whom you received money in America? Mr. SEVILLA. None. Only through my brother in the Philippine Islands. 128 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. What business is your brother in in the Philippine Islands? Mr. SEVILLA. He is only a humble treasurer of one of the localities. Senator HAWES. You have no income derived from any source in the United States? Mr. SEVILLA. No, Senator; not like some of my political friends. Senator HAWES. And you receive no moneyMr. SEVILLA. I receive no money from any factional groups or political groups, or from any friend of mine here in this country. Only from my family at home. Senator HAWES. From any Americans? Mr. SEVILLA. No, Senator. Senator HAWES. Has your transportation been paid down here? Mr. SEVILLA. Where? Senator HAWES. To Washington, from New York. Mr. SEVILLA. I paid it myself. Senator HAWES. You paid it yourself; and your income is derived from the money which your brother sends you from the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. From the Philippines. Senator HAWES. And from no other source? Mr. SEVILLA. Not from other sources. Senator HAWES. Did you ever visit the offices of the PhilippineAmerican Chamber of Commerce? Mr. SEVILLA. I have never met anyone, and I don't go there. Senator HAWES. Nobody connected with that? Mr. SEVILLA. I have not met anybody. I know that there are some political grounds for your question, Senator, but really, as I told you, I have never talked to anybody else. I have never bargained to trade my leadership in the cause of my country. Senator HAWES. You have never done what? Mr. SEVILLA. Unlike some others, I have never bargained or traded my leadership in the cause of my country. Senator HAWES. What leadership? Mr. SEVILLA. I am fighting for my leadership in my country and, Mr. Chairman, it appears that somebody in the opposition is trying to discredit me before the committee. Senator HAWES. What do you mean by " leadership?" Whom do you represent in the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. I mean for my own determination, for my leadership, I would like to haveSenator HAWES. You mean you lead yourself. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator HAWES. Do you represent any group in the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not represent any group in the Philippines. Senator HAWES. To what political party do you belong? Mr. SEVILLA. To the progressive democratic party of my country. Senator HAWES. What party do you represent in the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not represent any official party from the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. You are here alone in the United States? Mr. SEVILLA. I am here alone, struggling to make a political career in the future. Senator HAWES. Speaking for yourself? Mr. SEVILLA. Speaking for myself. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 129 Senator HAWEs. You deny, do you, that your resignation was asked for from the Department of Justice? The CHAIRMAN. Senator, the witness has come here voluntarily to give us information. Mr. SEVILLA. I have come here to give the committee information and I am ready to give information to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. The witness has come here to give the committee information in regard to the bills before us, and it does not seem to the Chairman, with all due respect, that the inquiries are proper. Will the Senator not wait until the witness has made his statement Senator HAwEs. Just one or two questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEVILLA. Go ahead, Senator. Senator HAWES. Then, you deny that your resignation was asked for by the Department of Justice? Mr. SEVILLA. Senator, will you be kind enough to bring my resignation here, and show me that the Department of Justice forced me to resign? If they requested me to resign, that would be only circumstantial evidence to persecute me. But you have no written statement. You have made an inquiry, but do you know that I was forced to resign? The CHAIRMAN. The witness is not here asking or seeking any employment, and is not being confirmed by the Senate in any capacity, but he has asked for permission to appear in connection with the bill for Philippine independence. I do not know which side he is going to appear on, nor anything about him personally, except that I have seen him here a number of times. I hope the Senator will not take the attitude that he is to be cross-examined at this time. Senator HAWES. Mr. Chairman, it is a very significant thing that the representatives of all the organized groups in the Philippines appear here in behalf of independence, and here comes a man who has been in the United States for a period of time. He first tells us that he is a lawyer, and then that he is only a law student. Mr. SEVILLA. Excuse me. Senator. Did I tell you I was a lawyer? Senator HAWES. I thought you said so. Mr. SEVILLA. I said I was a student of law. Here is my card, Senator. Is there any implication there that I am a lawyer. The CHAIRMAN. I think there was a misunderstanding there. Senator HAWES. Just a moment, please. The CHAIRMAN. I noticed, when the question was asked, as to whether you were a lawyer, you said, if I remember correctly " yes, I am a student of law." Mr. SEVILLA. I am a student of law. The CHAIRMAN. You did, I think, say " yes," which gave the Senator that impression. Mr. SEVILLA. I am studying law, Senator, but if I were a lawyer I would have written my name here on my card to indicate that. Senator HAWES. It is very natural, Mr. Chairman, that a man who appears in opposition to the aspirationsMr. SEVILLA. How do you know, Senator, that I appear here in opposition to Philippine independence? How do you know I am opposed to it? I have not said anything yet to this committee to 130 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS the effect that I am opposed to Philippine independence. My dear Senator, you are accusing me of a great deal. Senator HAWES. We will find out in a very few minutes whether you are, and we will find out some other things. Mr. SEVILLA. How do you know I am opposed to Philippine independence? Senator HAWES. We will find out in a few minutes about you. Go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask one more question. What political enemies have you in this country? Mr. SEVILLA. Those political groups who are here. We might be opposed in principles, but we are united for Philippine independence. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any political enemies in this country? Mr. SEVILLA. Politically, I may say yes, because the distinguished Senator has information already about me. Senator HAWES. Why have you any enemies? You were never of enough importance in the Philippines to have any political enemies. Mr. SEVILLA. A man who is growing politically necessarily has some political enemies, because they are getting jealous of my activity here in Washington. Senator HAWES. You say they are jealous of you here. Mr. SEVILLA. Certainly. Senator HAWES. For what reason are they jealous of you? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not know; it is on account of ignorance. Senator, you do not know me. How do you happen to know everything about my humble position in the Department of Justice? How did you know about my stay in the International House, pretending to be a son of the governor of one of the Provinces of the Philippine Islands? Senator HAwEs. I know that you held yourself out as a possible candidate for the State senate or legislature in the Philippines, and you would no more dare run for office in the Philippines than you would think of flying to the moon. Mr. SEVILLA. I will do my best Senator. I will submit my election to the electorate of the Philippine Islands. As a private citizen, Senator, I could discuss the situation more firmly and frankly than anybody in this country. Pardon me, Senator. Senator HAWES. I do not mind your pounding the table. It interests me. I rather like it. Mr. SEVILLA. May I begin now, Senator? Senator HAwES. Yes; and pound the table, too, if vou like. Mr. SEVILLA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have been chosen as members of this committee to pass upon the fundamental rights of a people, and I have been honored in being chosen unofficially to appear before you in a presentation and defense of those rights. I am only a private citizen of the Philippine Islands, and am appearing for the purpose of furthering the cause of my countrymen, in, behalf of their inherent rights of independence and selfgovernment. The Government of the United States, in freeing us from the chains of a despotic ruler, has seen fit to grant us only autonomy. During the years which have elapsed my people have gained in wisdom and stature, and under the great influence of your western INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 131 civilization we have emerged, as it were, from the darkness into the light. We have a crystallized national desire for Philippine independence. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the question of Philippine independence is an old issue. Philippine independence has always been a great problem in the United States and in the Philippine Islands. The Philippine Islands have always represented a great issue in both political parties in this country, and also at home, in the Philippine Islands. Mr. Chairman, I am going to divide my presentation this morning into three distinct parts, namely, political conditions, educational conditions, and economic conditions. The CHAIRMAN. Before you begin, may I ask if I am correct in thinking that you are appearing here in favor of Senator King's bill? Mr. SEVILLA. No, sir. I will come to the point later. The CHAIRMAN. You are in favor ofMr. SEVILLA. I have it here, Senator. I will come to that point later. Senator TYDINGS. There are one or two questions that I would like to ask the speaker before we get into a discussion of the merits of the question. I would like to ask him in what business he is engaged. The CHAIRMAN. He has already been cross-examined. Mr. SEVILLA. Never mind. I am only a student of law here, Senator Tydings. The CHAIRMAN. A most extraordinary thing has happened this morning which, as chairman of the committee, I greatly regret. It has not been the practice of this committee to permit witnesses appearing before it to be cross-examined before they have had a chance to say a word. Mr. SEVILLA. Never mind, Senator. They accuse me. I will show to this committee who are the men who have been working against me and against my political career in the future. I am always willing to answer my political friends-I will not say they are my enemies. I will address them as my political friends. Senator HAWES. When you talk about your political enemies, to what party do you belong in the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. I told you, Senator, that I am more or less of a progressive Democrat in the Philippine Islands, but I am not officially connected with either party or any political group or faction in the Philippine Islands. I am appearing before this committee, as I told you, as a private citizen of the Philippine Islands and nothing more. Senator HAWES. You stand alone. Mr. SEVILLA. I stand alone, and in that way I can discuss the subject more firmly than by being under obligation to any party or political group in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. Apparently somebody has thought it worth while to give several members of the opposition party here a little information in regard to your history, so apparently they consider you of sufficient importance to do that and to coach at least two Senators in embarrassing questions to ask you. 92109-30-PT 22-2 132 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. The gentleman evidently belongs to a party which consists solely of himself, as far as I can find out. The CHAIRMAN. He has not pretented to represent anyone but himself. Mr. SEVILLA. I told you that, Senator. Senator HAWES. He has been talking about his political enemies. Mr. SEVILLA. I have considered that I have political enemies from the fact that you already have all this information. How do you happen to know me? If it were not for my political friends, Senator, you would not happen to know me. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you ask the Senator where he got this information? Mr. SEVILLA. Where did you get this information, Senator? Senator HAWES. I will tell you very frankly. Mr. SEVILLA. I will be frank with you. Did you happen to know me before, or did I ever meet you before, Senator? Senator HAWES. No, sir. Mr. SEVILLA. It is very significant, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, and very suspicious, as to how the distinguished Senator has happened to learn all about me, and what I am going to do. If he has that information, he got it from my political friends. Senator HAWES. I will answer your question and that of the chairman, too. You are here opposing Philippine independence. Mr. SEVILLA. How do you know I am opposing Philippine independence? I have not said anything yet. That is a miracle, Mr. Chairman. He is accusing me right away. He is accusing me of not being in support of Philippine independence. That is a terrible accusation. I would not have accused anybody without hearing his statement, so, Senator, I think you are doing me an injustice by accusing me right away of being in opposition to Philippine independence. Senator HAwEs. No; I am not doing you an injustice. You are here. Mr. SE. SEVILLA. But you are advancing the view that I am opposed to Philippine independence. Senator HawES. You are here fighting the aspirations of your country, represented by both parties, and everybody in the Philippines, acting, in my opinion, as it will develop as you read your paper, in opposition to the aspirations of your country. Mr. SEVILLA. Upon what do you base the statement, Senator, that I am opposed to Philippine independence? Senator TYDINGS. Then, you are in favor of it, are you? Mr. SEVILLA. I am going to discuss it. Senator TYDINGS. Then, at present, you are neither in favor of it nor against it. Mr. SEVILLA. Let my statement speak for itself. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, you want to make a talk, but you are neither for nor against Philippine independence, which is the matter before the committee. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes, I have a position, but my statement will disclose it. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that the witness be allowed to proceed in his own way. We have at least eight other witnesses to hear this morning. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 133 Mr. SEVILLA. I have political enemies and political friends here. I do not know where he gets that information. The Senator seems to be very much interested in me. I told him who I was. He said, "you were forced to resign "; but if you can show me a statement where I was forced to resign, I will thank you, Senator. I was not forced to resign. Senator HAWES. Your resignation was requested. Mr. SEVILLA. All right. That is another word. Senator HAWES. You do not deny that? Mr. SEVILLA. I am not an expert in the English language, but I understand clearly what you are trying to do to me, Senator. Senator HAWEs. You do not deny that your resignation was requested? Mr. SEVILLA. All right. Senator HAWES. You do not deny that, do you? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not deny it. It was not forced. Those are two words, Senator. It is very complicated. Senator HAWES. I think you have not got much of a political party in the Philippines. I do not think you will ever run for office out there, of any kind. That is my judgment. Mr. SEVILLA. In your own judgment, and in the judgment of your political friends. That is your own judgment and the judgment of your political friends. Senator HAWES. That is my judgment. Mr. SEVILLA. Because they think I am only a poor boy. Not at all. I would never be afraid to face any of my political friendsSenator HAWES. You will never submit your name for any election for any office in the Philippines after you get through to-day. Mr. SEVILLA. That is the conviction of my political friends, who are ignorant in that matter. How can I be judgedSenator HAWES. Let us find out whether you are for independence or against it. Mr. SEVILLA. All right. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, since the passage of the Jones law in 1916 the Filipino people have been given an extended opportunity to participate in their own local affairs. The Filipino people have been given the same privileges and rights as American citizens of this country, under a democratic regime. Our government is divided into three distinct factors-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive is the highest man of the land, appointed by the President of the United States with the consent of the United States Senate. The Governor General of the Philippine Islands is the representative of the American people. We have our legislature, which is composed of two houses, the upper and lower houses. With very few exceptions, all the members of the Philippine Legislature are elected by the qualified voters of the Philippine Islands. The judiciary is composed of Americans and Filipinos, appointed by the President of the United States, subject to the approval of the Senate of the United States. Mr. Chairman, while I shall believe that the Jones law was intended to promote our welfare, the other side of the question is that it has not effected our national independence. Let us read the preamble 134 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS of the Jones law. I am not a constitutional lawyer, and the distinguished Senator will bear in mind that I am not a lawyer. Neither am I an expert international interpreter, but I can say something about the preamble of the Jones law. It is entitled ';An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands." The preamble to the King bill reads, in part: Whereas the act entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands," approved August 29, 1916, declared it to be the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; andI firmly believe in the establishment of a stable government in the Philippine Islands. If the Philippine government is not a stable one, who is to be blamed? I can not blame the distinguished Senator, because in the first place, the provisions of the Jones law are very complicated. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committeeSenator HAWES. Before you pass from that bill: Are you in favor of that, or against it? Mr. SEVILLA. I am coming to that point. Senator HAWES. I will ask you now. Mr. SEVILLA. I can notSenator HAWES. You can not answer? Mr. SEVILLA. I refuse to answer the Senator. I will come to the point. Senator HAWES. I want to ask you whether you just read a portion of a bill. Mr. SEVILLA. I am only reading, Senator, the preamble of the Jones law, which reads exactly the sameSenator HAWES. That is the preamble of the Jones law? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. I have not advocated any bill here yet. Senator HAWES. I understand you have not reached that point, but you have reached the point where the question of independence is in your mind, at least. Are you opposed to it or in favor of it? Mr. SEVILLA. I just answered the Senator this morning. I am going to prove it to you Senator HAWES. I ask the question. Mr. SEVILLA. I refuse, Senator, to answer you at this moment. Senator HAWES. You refuse to answer? Mr. SEVILLA. At this moment, Senator, because I am coming to the point. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that the witness be allowed to proceed in his own way. Senator HAWES. You will answer, before you are through, as to whether you are in favor of independence or not? Mr. SEVILLA. I will tell you, Senator. I will answer you. Senator HAWES. Will you take up the three bills that are now before us? Mr. SEVILLA. I will consider it myself, but in my own discussion I do not want to break my topic and leave the rest of it not under INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 135 stood by the members of the committee. So, I will have to proceed with my own statement. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I have read to you already the preamble of the Jones law. I have said to you that the contents of that law, the promises, pledges, and the provisions of the Jones law, are very complicated. There is not a single statement, Mr. Chairman, on the part of the Filipino people, that would indicate a desire to force the grant of independence upon the Congress of the United States. I am going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, why the distinguished president of the Philippine Senate is not here, with the Philippine mission, as a special envoy from the Philippine Islands to fight for Philippine independence. I was informed Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the witness, but I think the president of the Philippine Senate is perfectly able to speak for himself, either through his authorized representatives, or by communications, and I must object to cluttering up the record with suppositions and information which can not be authenticated. The CHAIRMAN. I regret to say, Senator, that the record has already been cluttered up. Senator TYDINGS. Let us stop cluttering it up from now on. If the chair does not want to sustain that viewpoint, I ask the chair to refer to the committee the proposition that all hearsay evidence or suppositions be ruled out. Let us make a record that will be worthwhile and not based upon guesswork. Mr. SEVILLA. What do you mean, Senator? Senator TYDINGS. I mean that the president of the Philippine Senate is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, and you are just about to tell us, from your preliminary remarks, how he feels on the subject. What we want to know is how you feel. Mr. SEVILLA. I am not expressing, Senator, how he feels about the subject. Senator TYDINGS. I do not know whether you are or not. Mr. SEVILLA. I am telling you he is not with the present mission in Washington. Senator TYDINGS. For my part I only want your views on it. We will get to his case later. Mr. SEVILLA. Senator, the fact that he is the highest man elected officially in the Philippine IslandsSenator TYDINGS. Then, the president is~ against Philippine independence? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not know; I suppose he is. Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose you tell us what you do know for a while. Mr. SEVILLA. I can not speak for the president. But, Mr. Chairman, it was surprising to me to know that the distinguished president of the Philippine Senate is not here, he being the leader of his party and being the highest official elected in the Philippine government. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am coming now to a discussion of educational conditions. -I am very glad to inform this committee that my country is very fortunate in matters of education. Our methods of education include the grammar school, the 136 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS high school, the college, and the university. I can assure this committee, Mr. Chairman, that in the matter of education the Filipinos are less illiterate than ever before, and that we could possibly carry out our self-government in the future by virtue of the present educational system in the Philippine Islands. I come now, Mr. Chairman, to a discussion of the economic development, which is a primary question, and a most important question in the discussion of Philippine independence. You know very well, Mr. Chairman, that only through economic development can a government endure and its people progress. The investment of American capital in the Philippines has always been a problem of the American people, and in the Philippine Islands it is a problem with our political leaders. It is essential to the development of our economic life. None of our political leaders have offered a solution of the problem. This is entirely a question of leadership. If I ever sold or bargained away my leadershipSenator HAwEs. What do you mean by your leadership? Mr. SEVILLA. I am speaking again for my future determination. Senator HAWEs. You mean your future leadership. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. Something that is going to happen in the future. The CHAIRMAN. Did you say " legacy "? Mr. SEVILLA. No; I say, if I sold my leadership, if I ever bargained or traded my leadership to any person, that would be the time when the Philippine Islands and the Philippine people should fear in matters of American investment. I am not applying the statement to anyone in particular, or any particular one of the political leaders. The greatest competitors of our poor local merchants are the Chinese. Have the political leaders offered any remedy? No. Senator TYDINGS. Would you be in favor of submitting the question of Philippine independence to the Philippine people in an election, so that they could vote on it themselves? Mr. SEVILLA. I agree with you, Senator. Senator TYDINGS. You would be glad to have that done? Mr. SEVILLA. I would be glad, because in that way we could express our own views. Senator TYDINGS. What would the result be, in your opinion? Mr. SEVILLA. The result will be the decision of the majority of the people in the Philippine Islands. Senator TYDINGS. Do you think the people would vote in favor of independence? Mr. SEVILLA. I can not say that until I have seen the result. They are not afraid of American capital in the Philippine Islands, but they are afraid of the capital of the Chinese. Year after year, Mr. Chairman, immigration to the Philippine Islands has increased by the thousands, and yet do the political leaders take any steps to stop it? Chinese capital in the Philippine Islands represents the greatest competition of our poor merchants. It is American capital which has given us our prosperity. Opposition to American capital is only a matter of politics. Senator VANDENBERG. What do you think this committee ought to do? Mr. SEVILLA. It is for you to consider, Senator. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 137 Senator VANDENBERG. You think we ought to consider it. Mr. SEVILLA. You are going to consider it and devise your own remedy. In its recommendation to the Senate, this committee should decide the question as to whether the situation with regard to Chinese capital in the Philippines can be properly remedied. I find no remedy recommended by my political leaders. The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, but I am not getting all this. You found no remedy to do what? Mr. SEVILLA. To stop the Chinese merchants from investing capital in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. You found no remedy to prevent the Chinese merchants from investing capital in the Philippine Islands. Probably the Senator from Maryland is understanding more of this than I am, but I suggest to the witness that he talk a little more slowly It is hard to follow you. Senator TYDINGS. Did you make a pretty thorough investigation of that kind before you arrived at your conclusion? Mr. SEVILLA. I have all my practical experience for about 20 years. Senator HAWES. How old are you now? Mr. SEVILLA. Did the political leaders make any remedy? Senator HAWES. How old are you now? Mr. SEVILLA. Twenty-four. Senator TYDINGS. So you have been studying this ever since you were four years old. Mr. SEVILLA. I have been studying the question of Philippine independence, Senator BROUSSARD, Mr. Chairman, I have just arrived. Whom does this gentleman represent? The CHAIRMAN. This is Mr. Sevilla, who appears on his own behalf, not representing anyone. It appears to be one of the very few cases before this committee where a Filipino represents no one but himself. Senator TYDINGS. May I ask one more question, in order to clear the thing up? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator TYDINGS. You are here in your own capacity? Mr. SEVILLA. I am here in my own capacity, at my own request. Senator TYDINGS. You are not here as a result of any group of people who have taken action in the Philippines and appointed you as their delegate? Mr. SEVILLA. No, sir. Senator TYDINGS. You are here simply as your own free agent. Mr. SEVILLA. My own free agent. Senator TYDINGS. And you represent nobody but yourself? Mr. SEVILLA. Nobody but myself, just to help this committee in the solution. of the Philippine question. Senator TYDINGS. You have given me a lot of information that I did not think I would ever be able to get. Mr. SEVILLA. I will give you the real conditions of the Philippine Islands. (At this point Mr. Sevilla read from a newspaper clipping, which was not furnished to the reporter.) 138 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. SEVILLA. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, thousands of Filipinos have come here on account of this propaganda by the American shipping interests. Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask you another question, just in line with what you have said. From what you say, I take it that the American shipping interests and the Americans in the Philippines are very much in favor of Philippine independence. You say that the propaganda that the American shipping interests and Americans are making is in favor of Philippine independence. Mr. SEVILLA. I did not quite understand the Senator. Senator TYDINGS. What was your last statement about the shipping interests? Mr. SEVILLA. I say that, because of the propaganda made by the shipping interests, the Filipinos are lured to come here, because of the opportunities and the promises made in the advertisements; but the truth is, Senator, that our national political leaders did not remedy the labor conditions of the Philippine Islands. Senator TYDINGS. You are too far ahead of me. I can not catch up with you, so I will not interrupt you any more. Mr. SEVILLA. I mean to say that the Filipino leaders have neglected to remedy our labor conditions in the Philippines. In the Philippine Legislature, in the cabinet, and among the bureau chiefs, we have the highest paid Filipino people, but we have the poorest paid laborers in the Philippine Islands. Senator TYDINGS. You said something about your brother being the treasurer of some municipality. Where is he the treasurer of a municipality? Mr. SEVILLA. In a town of about 5,000 population. Senator TYDINGS. With no disrespect to him, but to find out his standing there, what is his salary as treasurer; do you know? Mr. SEVILLA. I refuse to answer the Senator. Are you investigating a man who is not here but in the Philippine Islands? Senator TYDINGS. It is less than $100 a year, is it not? Mr. SEVILLA. I submit that question to the chairman of the committee as to whether I should answer the Senator or not. Senator TYDINGS. It is less than a hundred dollars a year, is it not? Mr. SEVILLA. My brother is about the poorest paid. He gets about 90 pesos a month. Senator TYDINGS. There was no reflection intended on him. I just wanted to fix that, because you had mentioned him in your preliminary remarks as showing that your standingMr. SEVILLA. But you must understand, Senator, that the president of both houses of the Philippine Legislature and members of the Philippine Legislature, as well as members of the cabinet and the bureau chiefs, are the highest paid people in the Philippine Islands, comparable to any government that exists in the world. But I remind the distinguished Senator that the cause of the influx of Filipinos to California is the fact that the political leaders have not remedied labor conditions in the Philippine Islands. Senator TYDINGS. Now that you have brought that subject up, do you not think it would be a good thing for the economic conditions INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 139 in the Philippines if more Filipinos should come to this country, so that they could make more money? Mr. SEVILLA. Certainly; I agree with you. Senator TYDINGS. You are heartily in favor of them coming over here and finding positions here? Mr. SEVILLA. I can not blame them. Senator TYDINGS. And the result is that they will come here. Mr. SEVILLA. They will come here. Senator TYDINGS. And they will come here in increasing numbers each year. Mr. SEVILLA. Year after year. Senator TYDINGS. In the next 20 years. Mr. SEVILLA. There will be no more Filipino labor left in the Philippine Islands. Senator TYDINGS. They will all come to the United States. Mr. SEVILLA. Certainly, Senator. There will be no trouble about that. So, you see the condition of Filipino laborers in the Philippine Islands. The political leaders have brought forward no remedy. I say this because it is on account of the American shipping interests that the Filipinos are lured to come up here. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, there are greater opportunities for them here than there are in the Philippines. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. And they are sensible enough to see that opportunity, and all of them, naturally, now want to come. Mr. SEVILLA. They want to come up here because of that opportunity, and because of the poor conditions at home. Senator TYDINGS. There is a great desire that as many as possible should come to the United States at once, if they can. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. And the only thing that stops them is that they are not financially situated so as to make the venture. Mr. SEVILLA. Can you blame them, Senator? Senator TYDINGS. No. I am just interested in seeing why they do not come. Mr. SEVILLA. Because the political leaders have entirely neglected the labor condition in the Philippines. Senator TYDINGS. They are trying to keep them in the Philippines, and naturally they want to get out where they can make more money for themselves. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. In your judgment, if the steamship fare were reduced, and opportunity were foundMr. SEVILLA. I am coming to thatSenator TYDINGS. Just answer this question. If the steamship fare were reduced and there were great opportunities for them here, if somebody would try to locate them, they would come in great numbers to take advantage of the better opportunities here in this country? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. I would like to refer, Mr. Chairman, to the labor rates in the Philippine Islands. This is from a pamphlet entitled " Facts about the Philippines" issued by the Philippine-American Chamber of 140 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Commerce, 33 Liberty Street, New York City. It gives the following information as to wages in the Philippine Islands in 1922. Senator TYDINGS. Read a little more slowly. It is hard for me to follow you. Mr. SEVILLA. For agricultural laborers, 30 cents. Do you know how much they are getting in California, Senator? Senator TYDINGS. NO. Mr. SEVILLA. $4.50 a day. Senator TYDINGS. As against 30 cents. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. That is 15 times as much, is it not? Mr. SEVILLA. I think so. Senator TYDINGS. How much of a desire is there in the Philippines to go where they can get this increased pay? Is there a great desire? Mr. SEVILLA. A great desire, because my political leaders did not make any remedy. Senator VANDENBERG. You do not think much of those political leaders over there, do you? Mr. SEVILLA. No. Senator TYDINGS. When you get back to the Philippines the next time Senator HAWES. He will not go back. Don't worry about that. Senator TYDINGS. Yes; he will. Why do you not picture to them how well Filipinos are doing here, and how poorly they are doing in the Philippine Islands, and tell them they ought to come over here, where they will have greater opportunities? That would be a sensible thing, to relieve this suffering that they are laboring under, would it not? Mr. SEVILLA. Senator, I could not say I would be a political leader of my country. Senator TYDINGS. You will? Mr. SEVILLA. But it has always been my dream and my aspiration to submit my name to the electorate in the Philippine Islands on this issue. As I told you, I am reading to you now the prices for labor, as showing our labor condition in the Philippine Islands. For embroiderers, the rate is 25 cents. Can you beat that, Senators-25 cents a day! Senator TYDINGS. How much is it in this country? Mr. SEVILLA. I did not make any particular survey of that. For fishermen, the rate is 50 cents. Do you know how much they are receiving up here on the coast? They are getting $3 a day. Senator TYDINGS. They are getting only 50 cents in the Philippines. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. There is six times as much reason for a Filipino to be a fisherman in this country as in the Philippines. Mr. SEVILLA. I am only giving this to you for your particular information. For hatters the rate is 50 cents. Those are the people who make hats. For lumbermen the rate is 30 cents. No lumberman here would ever accept 30 cents a day. Senator TYDINGS. What do they get here? Mr. SEVILLA. From $5 to $7 a day. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 141 Senator TYDINGS. So there is about ten times as much reason for a Filipino being a lumberman here as there is in the Philippine Islands? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Miners get 70 cents. I have made a survey of the wages of miners here. I have inquired of one of the delegates, who tells me that their earning capacity is $7 a day. Senator TYDINGS. I wonder how that compares with Mexican labor? Mr. SEVILLA. I do not know, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. There are nine other witnesses to be heard this morning, and I can not allow this witness more than 10 minutes further. I ask that he be allowed to proceed for 10 minutes without interruption. Senator HAWES. Before he concludes, Mr. Chairman, I want him to express an opinion upon your resolution, Senator Vandenberg's bill, and Senator King's bill. Mr. SEVILLA. I have that here in my outline, Senator. I can not express an opinion on the Vandenberg bill, because it is very new. So I have not made a careful study of it. I do not want to say anything about that bill. Senator VANDENBERG. I suggest that you tell us what you think the answer is to the Philippine question. What do you think ought to be done with the Philippine Islands? Mr. SEVILLA. The only thing we wish to have done for the Philippine Islands is to give us liberty. Senator VANDENBERG. Immediate independence? Mr. SEVILLA. Immediate independence. We could discipline our political leaders, if not by the point of the pen then by the point of the sword. Senator VANDENBERG. I understood you to say you were not in favor of the King bill. Mr. SEVILLA. You are asking me another question? Senator VANDENBERG. I am trying to find out precisely what you have in mind. You say you are in favor of immediate independence. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. The King bill provides immediate independence. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. Why are you opposed to the King bill? Mr. SEVILLA. Because I do not know whether it will be passed in the Senator's time. There is another bill, the Bingham resolution. If the King bill is not passed in this regular session, I heartily indorse the Bingham resolution. Senator VANDENBERG. But you prefer to have the King bill passed? Mr. SEVILLA. If the Senate will pass it, all right. Senator TYDINGS. Then you are in favor of Philippine independence? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. And you are in favor of the King bill. Mr. SEVILLA. Yes, if it can be passed by the Congress of the United States. If not, I heartily indorse the Bingham resolution, calling for delegates to be appointed to discuss the Philippines question. 142 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator VANDENBERG. You are in favor of the King bill, but if we can not pass it, you are in favor of the Bingham resolution? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. Then you are in favor of giving the Philippines independence as an abstract proposition, but you are arguing as to why they should not get it. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a little unfair. Senator TYDINGS. I think it is very fair myself. Tile CHAIRMAN. I think it is unfair to take advantage of the lack of knowledge of the language by a national of another country. It is a little difficult for us-at least for me-to understand all that the witness has said, although he is speaking my language, and I am sure it is difficult for the Senator to get all of it. I do not think it is fair to put words in his mouth. I want to be sure that I have understood the witness, because I have not understood all that he has said, and if the witness will kindly pay attention, and answer yes or no to these questions-in the first place, are you in favor of immediate independence of the Philippines? Mr. SEVILLA. I am in favor of it. The CHAIRM-AN. You are in favor of it? Mr. SEVILLA. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. In the second place, if the Congress will pass the King bill, you are in favor of the King bill? Mr. SEVILLA. I am in favor of the King bill. The CHAIRMIAN. If the Congress does not pass the King bill you are in favor of the Bingham resolution? Mr. SEVILLA. I indorse it heartily. The CHAIRMAxN. With regard to Senator Vandenberg's billMr. SEVILLA. I can not say anything about it, because it is very new. The CHAIRMIAN. I shall ask the witness to conclude in five minutes. Mr. SEVILLA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in matters relating to our economic conditions, our political leaders have not formulated any national policy to promote our economic growth. Ever since the beginning our political leaders have not taken any preparatory steps to developing our resources. They have not adopted any national policy in matters of economic development, and here, again, Mr. Chairman, I bring before your committee for its consideration the question of the condition of the Philippine Islands in matters of economic development. Nobody is to be blamed but my political leaders. In matter of national defense, we have no army and no navy: no soldiers, and no munitions of war. War is always imminent in the Orient, yet my political leaders are agitating for Philippine independence. I do not see how we could well protect ourselves without any adequate national defense. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we have the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand treaty, and so forth, but all that does not mean a thing to the Philippine people, because, after all, our court of last resort is our national defense. Here again, Mr. Chairman, I am expressing my own view. We have no army, no navy, no soldiers, and no munitions of war. In the event of a national emergency we would have no adequate means for our national protection. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 143 (Mr. Sevilla then submitted the following written statement:) Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have been chosen as the members of this committee to pass upon the fundamental rights of a people and I have been honored in being chosen unofficially to appear before you in a presentation and defense of those rights. I am only a private citizen of the Philippine Islands and am appearing for the purpose of furthering the cause of my countrymen for their inherent right of independence and self-government. The Government of the United States in freeing us from the chains of a despotic ruler has seen fit to grant us only autonomy. Since and during the 30 years which have elapsed my people have grown in " wisdom and stature and in favor with God. and man." Under the broadening influence of your great western civilization we have emerged from chaos into a national consciousness. We have come, as it were, from the darkness into the light. We have a crystallized national desire for independence. We do not desire any more autonomy. We do not desire more supervision and we do not want to be vassals of even this, the greatest nation of the earth. However, rather than a continuance of, or increased autonomy on behalf of my people, I offer here and now that you take and make of us an island possession and mold us to your economic and political will if the Congress of the United States or the American people will not give to us our political independence now. We do not want any more autonomy. Too much autonomy is destructive of our local system of government under the present status of our politics. Why do I say this in behalf of my people? I say it only because we have had our political awakening. We fully understand all the evils perpetrated by the so-called political leaders of our country and it is our only hope that we may adopt the American slogan and become free and independent people with a Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." And in so doing we will eliminate vice and corruption in our local affairs and establish a moral and political code comparable to that of this our great exemplar. All of which leads to the request, the hope of the granting of which by this great Republic is the prayer in my heart and in the hearts of all my Filipino brothers. We want, we expect, and as a God-given right we demand our ultimate independence now. We stand free and equal in the sight of God and man. We have demonstrated our capacity for education, we have proven our national economic, political, and financial ability. We have proven our capacity for peace and have likewise proven our ability to maintain peace through the proper use of military power. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we believe that over the last quarter of a century we have enjoyed a period of tutorship in which we have qualified ourselves to take our place in the council of nations. We believe we compare favorably with most of the nations of the world and are superior to many in education, in political enlightenment, in moral quality, in Christianly attributes, in political acumen, and in economic and financial stability, and because, therefore, of those qualifications we believe we are entitled now to political independence. Therefore, for my people I am placing in your hands the problem of our destiny. With you, gentlemen, lies the fate of the twelve millions of souls who " were and of right ought to be born free and equal" with all the other people of the world. And now to you and through me, just one of those twelve millions, I bring the plea for our ultimate independence. We have no army and no navy; we have no soldiers and no munitions of war. We can not wrest from this great country the thing which we crave most, which lies nearest our hearts and which has become our national hope, yet, gentleman, we can and do appear before you, the representatives of this great Republic of freedom, and demand and expect our ultimate independence. Of course you gentlemen all realize the inestimable value of education. Without it people can not progress and government can not endure. In this regard my country is especially fortunate. We have adopted your standards and methods of education from the kindergarten through the grammar and high schools to the college and university. My country abounds in public and private schools. We enjoy a compulsory school attendance law which has brought my country to one where the percentage of illiterates is probably less now than that of any other country in the world. Upon this as one of the bulwarks of our country we base our hopes and demands for ultimate political independence. 144 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, economic development has been always one of major importance in the history of every country. It is so with us. Whether or not foreign capital should be admitted in the development of our country and its natural resources and in the betterment of our public utilities has assumed the importance of a political issue. Upon it political leadership has been built and likewise because of it political leadership will fall. For, after all, admission of foreign capital into the economic development of any country works to the good or ill of that country depending upon the character of its political leaders. If those leaders are sincere in their desire for the upbuilding and development of their country for the general good of all their people the admission of foreign capital under just and fair conditions has proven generally of benefit to the country. This great United States required much foreign capital in its economic evolutions. You know as a matter of every-day knowledge the value of foreign trade and friendly international relations. You appreciate fully, of course, no country any more than an individual can live alone. But in a national development, supervised as it must be under political directions by political leaders, it is essential that that leadership be of the highest moral character, willing to sacrifice all to the common good rather than barter their "birthright for a mess of pottage." Special privileges to special interests should not be granted. Special considerations to any one government should not be considered. Equal rights and equal protection to national or foreign capital should be accorded in the development of any country, and foreign business men should be wise enough to know that if a certain group of political leaders grant special privileges that leadership will one day fall and with it will go all special privileges that do not militate to the good of the country as whole. Therefore, the necessity in the economic development of any country is intelligent, honorable, and honest leadership. This my country can offer and upon it again we ask our ultimate independence. Gentlemen, I have called to your attention briefly our national strength. We have points of weakness. Should the London conference fully accomplish its objectives our weaknesses become of less importance, but until peace is assured in the world presumably it is necessary all countries have some means of national defense. At present we have none other than local officers comparable to your municipal police. As I have said before, we have no army and no navy and no munitions of war. Were we thrown to-day wholly upon our own resources we would be helpless in the face of a hostile invasion. But we will assume this responsibility, accept the risk, and make the supreme sacrifice if necessary as the price for our national independence, to the acquisition of which I pledge myself and my compatriots now and forever. Gentlemen, in the heart of every American there is born a nationalistic pride in his country, her flag, her history, and her traditions. And in the heart of every Filipino there is likewise born a great love of country and her flag, her history, and traditions. Pride of country and loyalty to her flag are not peculiar to any one people but are universal in the hearts and minds of men. This feeling only makes government possible and in my country, my own beloved Philippines, every heart beats true to his country and there wells within him the eternal hope for and the knowledge that one day he will gain his national independence and freedom; that one day soon his country will be recognized as one of the nations of the world and not a territorial possession subject to the vacillations of an ever-changing political panorama. Then we will have gained back our birthright; we will have become free and equal through the granting of that for which I to-day appear before youour ultimate national independence, the independence of the Philippines. In closing I wish to pay a tribute to the greatest of Filipino patriots, Emilio Aguinaldo. To him and his compatriots is due all credit and praise for the ever-increasing national desire for independence. To them and Isauro Gabaldon, former Resident Commissioner in Washington, I am indebted for the inspiration to carry on for my countrymen in their quest for independence, and when it shall have been gained, as surely it must be, to them should go all the credit because of their sincere, honest, continuous, and complete devotion to the cause. Gentlemen, I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Is Governor Gilbert here. (No response.) The next witness is Mr. Howard Kellogg. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 145 STATEMENT OF HOWARD KELLOGG, PRESIDENT SPENCER, KELLOGG & SONS (INC.), BUFFALO, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. How much time do you need, Mr. Kellogg? Mr. KELLOGG. I should say 15 or 20 minutes would be enough. We have two other gentlemen on the same subject. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we have prepared a brief here outlining the coconut oil and copra crushing industry in the Philippine Islands. It is handled in three sections. The first section is devoted to the Philippine coconut oil and copra crushing industry, considered from the point of view of the United States. The second section is considered from the point of view of the Philippines; and the third section deals with the American capital invested in the Philippine coconut-oil and copra-crushing industry. In the course of the brief we attempt to show how the coconut oil is not interchangeable with the oils or fats produced by the American agriculturalist, and that question will be handled, in a general way, by Mr. C. Rogers Brown. The technical part of the subject will be handled by Mr. J. D. Craig. I should like to speak about the American capital invested in the Philippine coconut oil and copra crushing industry myself. Mr. Fidel A. Rayes, director of commerce and industries of the Philippine government, in a recent estimate shows the total capital invested in coconut oil factories in the Philippines to be $6,185,000, of which the major portion is American capital. In addition to this capital invested in coconut oil crushing factories there is approximately $5,000,000 invested in industries which are necessary adjuncts to the coconut-oil mills. This is exclusively American capital and includes capital invested in barges, oil-handling facilities, and steamships. Therefore, a total of approximately $11,000,000 is invested in coconut-oil mills and facilities devoted exclusively to the Philippine coconut-oil business. This large investment will be practically a total loss if economic barriers are erected against the free importation of coconut oil (and copra) into the United States from the Philippines. As aforementioned, the operation of these coconut-oil mills in Manila is only possible because the United States requires large supplies of coconut oil but does not require the importation of much copra cake, so that the coconut-oil factories in the Philippines, by separating (crushing) the copra into oil and cake in the Philippines, where the copra is grown, are able to ship their copra cake to Europe and their coconut oil to the United States. Should the United States levy a duty on coconut oil from the Philippines, the consumers of coconut oil in the United States would purchase much of their coconut oil from coconut-oil- mills located in Java and in Europe. At the same time European consumers would purchase no coconut oil from the Philippine Islands as European consumers would prefer to purchase Philippine copra and bring the same to Europe, where they have need for both the coconut oil and the copra cake. In other words, the coconut-oil mills in the Philippines, owned by American capital, would have no opportunity to sell their coconut oil in Europe, whereas coconut oil mills located in European countries and in the colonial possessions of European 146 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS countries where copra is grown, would have an equal opportunity to sell coconut oil in the American market. An import duty into the United States on coconut oil from the Philippines would destroy the coconut oil crushing industry in the Philippines and would result in the Philippines' trade being reduced exclusively to the exportation of copra to the United States and European countries. The coconut-oil-crushing industry in the Philippines has been built up exclusively upon the free entry of Philippine coconut oil into the United States. Any duty imposed upon the importation of Philippine coconut oil into the United States will positively result in the destruction of this industry in the Philippines and practically the total loss of the capital invested in this industry by American firms. Senator VANDENBERG. How much Philippine employment does that represent, do you know? Mr. KELLOGG. The total industry. Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, you are speaking solely in terms of the destruction of American capital invested. I would like to know what that means in terms of Philippine employment. Mr. KELLOGG. Well, I should say that it meant, taking the oilhandling facilities and all the rest of it, probably somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 men, which would mean more in terms of families, of course. The CHAIRMAN. Does that include the handling of the copra, the manufacture of copra Mr. KELLOGG. That includes the handling of the copra at the mills, but not the gathering of it. That part of the industry is down in the country. The CHAIRMAN. I gathered from Senator Vandenberg's question that he wanted to know how many people in the Philippines are engaged in this industry, from the beginning of the industry to the time it comes into the United States. Mr. KELLOGG. That is what I answered. There are handling facilities in the islandsThe CHAIRMAN. I do not think you understood the question. As I understand it, the question goes back to the coconut plantations themselves, the gathering of the fruit and the preparation of the copra. Senator VANDENBERG. I want to know what the destruction of this thing would mean to the Philippines. You are referring to what it means to American capital. I would like to know what it means to the Philippines. The CHAIRMAN. Not merely the oil-crushing industry. Mr. KELLOGG. It woald be very hard for me to say. Perhaps one of the other gentlemen can tell you better about how many it would affect when you go back to the gathering of the copra itself, and take it all the way through. It would be more than what I mentioned. Senator VANDENBERG. YOU would not know what the average wage was? Mr. KELLOGG. I do not know what it is out in the provinces, but the wage in the mills, I should say, is around a dollar a day, or two pesos. Senator VANDENBERG. I beg your pardon for the interruption. Go ahead with your statement. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 147 Mr. KELLOGG. Of course, the gentleman who preceded me spoke about the great difference in wages over there as compared with wages here, but he did not seem to take into consideration the higher costs of living over here, because anyone living over here would have far greater expenses than anyone living in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be able to furnish the Committee, later, for insertion in the record, an estimate of the number of people employed in the coconut industry? That, I gathered, was the information desired by Senator Vandenberg. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, I think we could easily do that. There is another point that I wish to make. The destruction of the coconut-oil-crushing industry in the Philippines would be a blow to the American merchant marine. During the calendar year 1928, 142,000 tons of coconut oil were exported from the Philippines, of which 141,000 tons were exported to the United States. A large proportion of this tonnage was shipped from Cebu and Manila to Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic coast ports, in American bottoms and during last year, 1929, one of the leading American firms in the coconut-oil-crushing industry at Manila acquired the ownership of five American tank steamers, having a total tonnage of 37,500 expressed as dead-weight tons, valued at $3,000,000, for the exclusive purpose of transporting the production of coconut oil from their factories at Manila to the United States. The marine transportation of coconut oil is accomplished by the shipment of the oil in bulk, in tanks of 300 to 1500 tons capacity in cargo steamers or in tank steamers devoted exclusively to the transportation of liquids. Thus ocean tonnage of this character is also suitable for the transportation from the United States of such liquid commodities as peiroleum, gasoline, and so forth, of which large quantities were exported from the United States to the Orient. The movement of coconut oil from the Philippines to the United States also makes it possible for American cargo steamers to carry coconut oil on the return voyage to the United States. in the tanks in which their supply of fuel oil for their outbound voyage has been carried and consumed in propelling the vessel. The movement of 141,000 tons of coconut oil from the Philippines to the United States affords a very substantial amount of tonnage to American shippers and any duty on the importation of Philippine coconut oil into the United States would result in the diversion of this tonnage from coconut oil to copra and in turn the relative tonnage in copra would be largely diverted to European countries and thereby result -in a very substantial net loss of tonnage to American shippers. Senator VANDENBERG. Have you any figures Io show how much of that tonnage, if any, is in ships operated by the Shipping Board? Mr. KELLOGG. No, I have not any with me, jut I think we could easily get that. To give you a general summary of this brief, a careful investigation into every phase of the present relationship between the United States and the Philippine Islands in connection with oils and fats proves conclusively that: There is no factor of avoidable competition between Philippine coconut oil (and copra) and oils and fats produced by American:agriculturists. 92109-30 ---PT 2- 3 148 IN-DEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS There is not a single feature in connection with the present freedom of trade between the United States and the Philippines in coconut oil and copra that is to the disadvantage of the United States, its agricultural producers, or its consumers. On the other hand, intelligent and searching investigation proves conclusively that: The United States has an asset of inestimable value in having under the American flag the large supply of Philippine copra and coconut oil, which is indispensable in the manufacture of products which are basic necessities required by American consumers. It is a matter of common knowledge that American industries which require rubber as a necessary raw material in the production of many articles have continuously labored under the hardship and feeling of insecurity because of all the rubber required by the United States being produced in the colonial possessions of European countries. It is a matter of record that agents of the American Government have for years taken an active part in various efforts to free American consumers of rubber from admonitions of foreign producers of rubber and the extortionate prices which American consumers have frequently been obliged to pay for this commodity because of our country having no substantial production within our own territorial limits. In the production of many oil and fat products, in the category of basic necessities in the United States, coconut oil is fully as indispensable an ingredient as rubber is indispensable in the production of many other articles. Philippine coconut oil is no more competitive to American producers than is foreign rubber. The position of foreign rubber and Philippine coconut oil in relation to American commerce and industries is practically identical. Our supply of Philippine coconut oil in times of national emergencies would be indispensable as a source of glycerin for the manufacture of explosives. When oils are split into fatty acids and glycerin, the fatty acids are of no edible value and consequently glycerin must be obtained from soap-making varieties of oils and fats in order that the necessary supply of edible oils and fats shall not be impaired. )uring an international emergency American control of a large supply of coconut oil, such as the Philippine production, would be a vital factor in securing a necessary supply of glycerin and in naintaining a necessary supply of oils and fats for edible purposes. The duty-free importation of coconut oil and copra from the Philippines furnishes the American consumers with this indispensable vegetable oil at its international value and any import duty imposed on Philippine coconut oil would only be an unnecessary burden to all American consumers and would not act as a measure that would elevate the price of domestic produced oils and fats. The duty-free importation of coconut oil and copra from the Philippines is most desirable as an important factor in maintaining the high standard of sanitation now enjoyed by the United States. Any tariff inflation in the cost of Philippine coconut oil will result in a substantial increase in the cost of laundry and toilet soaps, and it is a well-established fact that the liberal use of soap in the United States has been I, i t about by maintaining the cost of soap at low levels. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS' 149 Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Kellogg, do you think we are entitled to settle the question of Philippine independence on the basis of domestic trade considerations, either pro or con? Mr. KELLOGG. I think they should be considered. Domestic trade conditions should be considered. Senator VANDENBERG. Are we entitled to consider our own selfish welfare in determining the question? Mr. KELLOGG. I do not think we are, but I think we should know the facts before deciding. I think we are also entitled to take into consideration the effect that this change will have on the islands themselves, and the people in the islands, in respect to their own welfare. Senator VANDENBURG. That is entirely true. Senator HAWES. Mr. Kellogg, you seem to assume that if the Philippines are given their independence, there will be an embargo or a duty placed upon this oil. That is the whole burden of your opposition. Mr. KELLOGG. Well, I feel that way because it is coming up at this time, and articles that have been printed in the newspapers, and so forth, seem to indicate, in a measure, that it is part of the tariff agitation which is going on here at the present time that is bringing it up so forcibly at this time. Senator HAWES. SO that is what you fear if we give the Philippines their independence. You fear an expression of both Houses of Congress, with the approval of the President. That would be contrary to your position. Mr. KELLOGG. Well, I fear that if the Philippines were no longer under the American flag, then automatically the duty on coconut oil would be applied to them. There is a duty of 2 cents a pound on it now from other countries. Senator HAWES. It would be applied by act of the American Congress, with the approval of the President, and you are afraid that. that action might be taken. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it would require any special legislation to do that, in view of the duty now in existence Mr. KELLOGG. I would think that automatically there would be a duty of 2 cents a pound on coconut oil, as soon as the islands were separated from us. The CHAIRMAN. It would seem so. Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Kellogg, one proposition that has been offered is that if the Philippine Islands were made free and independent the present tariff conditions will not be changed overnight, but rather changed gradually over a period of years. For example, if there is, we will say, a 5-cent tariff on an article, instead of wiping out the whole thing when independence is granted, 1 per cent would be wiped out each year until the whole thing was adjusted. The CHAIRMAN. That would take 100 years. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, instead of changing the whole economic situation at one time, it would be spread, if possible, over a period of years. I would like to ask you, if the bill is reported favorably, whether you think some such provision as that would help or harm your particular business in the Philippines 150 IXDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. KELLOGG. I think that as soon as you made any change tlhe harm would be apparent right from the start. Of course, it would help a little, but I think as soon as the change was made it would discourage capital, and it would start an exodus of industries front the Philippines, and the bad effects would become apparent. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, you think it is worth while as an abstract proposition to make the commercial change gradually, notwithstanding that independence might be acted on instantly. Mr. KELLOGG. I think that would be desirable; yes. Senator HAWES. Then, Mr. Kellogg, your opposition to independence is based upon the fear that Congress might place a duty. Mr. KELLOGG. There is a duty on coconut oil right now, which would militate automatically against the mills that are established in the islands. Senator HAwES. And you fear that it would be increased to a point of danger. Mr. KELLOGt(G. NO. It is already there. and is a danger. You see, copra comes in here free fronm any part of the world, but the coconut oil is dutiable at 2 cents a pound, so that coconut oil from the Philippines is coming in here free, just as copra from all over is coming in free. The minute you separate the islands from the United States there will be a tariff barrier of 2 cents a pound on the ccoconut oil, which will shut out the product of the mills in the islands from the United States market. Another portion of this brief goes into that question a little more clearly. Senator HAwEs. You are assuming, of course, that that would be the attitude of the United States toward the Philippines in case of independence. Mr. KELL(GG. Yes; I would assume so. Senator HAWES. But it does not necessarily follow that that would happen. Mr. KELLOGG. No; but even a small measure of a barrier to their coconut oil would stop it coming in here, because the profit in making the oil is very small. It is only a fraction of a cent a pound, a small fraction, say a quarter or three-eighths of a cent at the most, and a little tariff would shut it out from the United States market. As soon as it stopped coming to the United States market, that would kill the industry in the islands. Senator HAWES. Of course, Mr. Kellogg, the duty w-oull not lbe placed upon your article, or impediments put in its way, by an independent republic. It would only be done by our own country. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. Senator HAWEs. And they would refuse to put it on, or they could add to it, but it would then become a matter for the judgment of Congress. Senator VANDENBERG. Would it not happen automatically, Senator, the moment they were independent? Senator HAWES. It would if we left the rate as it is to-day, but I assume we could change it if it were desirable. Mr. KELLOGG. What I wanted to point out is that ally rate at all would be such a disadvantage that it would immediately shunt the oil off into foreign markets, or stop the mills entirely. Senator TYDINGS. Perhaps this is not quite a fair question. but I mean it to be fair. As an abstract proposition, if trade relations INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 151 between the United States and the Philippines could remain as they are at present, you would not care as much about the Philippine independence problem as you do about the possibility you have just mentioned. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes; that is true. Senator TYDINGS. I mean, if you could have your business safeguarded there, the question of whether or not the Philippines should be free would not necessarily bring you here, isn't that true? Mr. KELLOGG. We want to place these facts before you. Senator TYDINGS. I understand. I am not criticizing you. I am sympathizing with you. But I am trying to bring out the fact that that is the reason you are here. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. It is the reason we are interested, because we have our mills there. The CHAIRMAN. The supplementary or complementary fact was brought out by the representative of the Farm Bureau Federation, that if they had succeeded in getting a duty on coconut oil and on sugar, they would not be here requesting Philippine independence. Senator TYDINGS. That is true. I think it applies both ways. Mr. KELLOGG. I do not mean to say that we necessarily do not believe the Philippines should be independent. Senator BROUSSARD. Are not the facts as follows? We passed the Jones Act, and the Americans interested in the Philippines have been using the material to excite this question against the independence, and the people who have always been willing to grant independence find that it is hurting them, and they are using the same argument against the people who obstructed the independence of the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to follow up Senator Tydings' question a bit further if it is not objectionable. Undoubtedly you have had large Philippine experience, as a result of your investments aid operations over there. I was wondering whether you would care to express a general opinion as a result of those experiences, as to whether you think the Philippines are capable of self-government at the present time. I do not press that question if it is embarrassing. Mr. KELLOGG. I would rather not express an opinion on that. Senator VANDERBERG. I will not press it. Mr. KELLOGG. I would like to speak about the trade relations we have with the Philippines. To show the relationship between American exports and imports in the commerce with the Philippines, and to show the major place which agricultural products occupy in our exports, Table B is presented on page 18, showing the principal commodities in trade between the United States and the Philippine Islands. In Table B, which covers only the imports and exports of the principal commodities, the exports of cotton cloth, wheat, condensed milk, and cigarettes amount to approximately $22,000,000. In addition thereto, other agricultural products were exported from the United States, consisting of other cotton products, amounting to $3,400,000; other tobacco products, amounting to $1,300,000; fruits and nuts, amounting to $1,235,000; meat products, amounting to $719,000; vegetables, amounting to $677,000; woolen articles, amounting to $153,000; and honey. amounting to $5,000, all of which 152 INDEPENDENCE FOPR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS bring the total value of American agricultural products exported to the Philippines in 1928 to approximately $29,000,000. Senator BROUSSARD. What were the importations from the Philippines to the United States, the total? Mr. KELLOGG. Against the American agricultural products, amounting to $29,000,000, exported to the Philippines during 1928, the United States imported approximately $44,000,000 worth of coconut products-coconut oil and copra. These imports of coconut products from the Philippines -were indispensable to Americall consumers, and not one pound of these products is grown in the United States. On the other hand. the Philippines imported from the United States $29,000,000 worth of agricultural products, a large portion of which could hlave been purchased from other countries. The erection of economic barriers against imports from the Philippines can not curtail the importation of coconut products-copra and coconut oil-into the United States, but, on the other hand, such economic barriers would greatly curtail our exports to the Philippine Islands. Senator VANDENBERG. )D I understand vyo now to sav that an American tariff would not interfere with the importation of the coconut oil and copra? Mr. KELLOGG. Because they would come from other countries. such as Java and European countries, where they have large mills for making this coconut oil. Senator VANDENBERG, Why would they come from there instead of from the Philippines? Mr. KELLOGG. Because they would produce that a little cheaper than it could be produced in the Philippine Islands.' That is explained in another portion of this brief. The CHAIRMAN. Is it true that a certain amount of the copra used in the coconut-oil mills in the Plilippine Islands is imported from elsewhere in the East Indies? Mr. KELLOGG. No; that is not true. It is all made in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. It is all growxn there? Mr. KELLOGG. Yes; not only that. but a portion of it is exported to Europe as well as the United States. The CHAIRMAN. I have understood that there was a certain amount of importation of copra into the Philippines. Mr1. KELLOGG. No, sir. There is an export to European countries, besides the export to the United States. The CHAIRMAN. So, your attitude is that if independence were granted and automatically the Philippine Islands became a foreign country, so that the tariff applied, and if there were no reciprocity treaty permitting coconut oil to come in free of duty, nor any arrangement such as was made with Cuba, granting an advantage in the rates, Java and other countries would be able to compete and put the Philippines more or less out of business so far as the production of coconut oil is concerned? Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. sir: absolutely. It would seem to me rather too bad. after we have built up an industry there in the islands and helped them get started in an industrial way. to simply drop them flat and destroy all that. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 153 Senator TYDINGS. May I ask you one more question? How long have you been engaged in this business in the Philippines? For some time, I presume. Mr. KELLOGG. About 12 years. Senator TYDINGS. You started it 12 years ago.? Mr. KELLOGG. That is the crushing. During the war we bought the oil from other mills. Senator TYDINGS. But you had no mills of your own until about 15 years ago? Mr. KELLOGG. I would not say as long ago as that. I should say 12 years. Senator VANDENBERG. You built those mills in the face of the Jones Act? Mr. KELLOGG. The mills were built during the war. Senator VANDENBERG. But your expansion has been since the Jones Act. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. So, you did not take very seriously the preamble to the Jones law, when it promised independence. Mr. KELLOGG. It was a better place to manufacture, and we thought we would try and develop there rather than develop over here. Senator VANDENBERG. I was just wondering if it was not fair to assume that you were put on notice by the Jones law that ultimately independence was to be the status that the Philippines were to occupy. Mr. KELLOGG. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did the fact that, while the Senate passed such an amendment by a majority of one, if my recollection is correct, and the House refused to agree to put the promise of independence into the act itself, but merely put it in the preamble, have any effect on your business, or your going in there Mr. KELLOGG. I could not say that it had very much effect on it. Senator VANDENBERG. You can not split your philosophy that fine. The CHAIRMAN. You decided to take a chance, is that it? Mr. KELLOGG. Yes. We thought that nothing very drastic would be done, such as is contemplated at this time, suddenly divorcing the islands from us all at once and giving us no chance at all to readjust. Senator VANDENBERG. A 10-year period of serially progressive autonomy would give you a chance to adjust, would it not? Mr. KELLOGG. Yes; I think it would. We would rather have a longer period. The CHAIRMAN. Would you object to a program that would grant independence at the end of 20 years, say? Mr. KELLOGG. Personally, I would not. I think, if it is decided that that is the proper thing to do, we certainly would be very willing to gracefully retire. Senator HAWES. That means, Mr. Kellogg, that all the people in this room, practically, would be dead at that time, and it would not interest you. Senator TYDINGS. There is one more question I would like to ask you. How often do you go to the Philippines? Mr. KELLOGG. I have not been there myself. Officials of our company have been there. 154 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator TYDINGS. The reason I ask you that question is because I was going to ask you whether or not, since the war and during the war, a great deal of American capital had come into the Philippines and developed its industries that had not been there prior to the war; but that can be proved by statistics. I just thought perhaps you had been down there. Mr. KELLOGG. No. I have not been there personally. Senator HAWvES. Is your company a member of the PhilippineAmerican Chamber of Commerce? MIr. KELLOGG. Yes; we are. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. C. Rogers Brown, of the Brown-Edwards Co. (Inc.), 40 Rector Street, New York. STATEMENT OF C. ROGERS BROWN, OF BROWN-EDWARDS CO. (INC.), NEW YORK Mr. BnowN. IMy name is C. Rogers Brown; my address is 40 Rector Street, New York. Senator VAYNDENBIRG. What is your business? Mr. BRowN. I am in the vegetable oil business-all kinds of vegetable oils —and I am here in behalf of the Philippine coconut oil mills. Senator TYDINGS.. r. Brown, before vou start your statementT with the chairman's permission I would like to ask you a question. Have you been in the Philippines? Mr. BROWN. No; I have never been there. I believe that this question of independence for the Philippines will be handled by this committee and Congress in accordance with the best traditions of our country, and I am not in sympathy with talking to the subject on the dollars and cents basis, but I do think that the status of our trade relations should be perfectly clear, and all parties should be given consideration. Coconut oil from the Philippines has been a very much maligned comlmodity. Senator Vandenberg raised the question when Mr. Kellogg was on the stand, concerning the notice given by the Jones Act as to the future possibilities of the Philippines being free. When the Jones Act was passed coconut oil was on the free list, and it never had been dutiable in the history of the American tariff, until the dairy interests of this country came to Washington in 1922 and set up the claim that it was competitive with American products. So, when the Jones Act was passed, no one ever dreamed that coconut oil would ever be dutiable, because it is not produced in the United States, and the raw material is not produced in the United States. Consequently I do not think anybody in the industry appreciated the significance of the Jones Act from that standpoint. I have a sample of coconut oil here. I do not know whether you gentlemen are familiar with the oil or not. Senator TYDINGS. Are you sure that is coconut oil? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. That is just the crude coconut oil. The chemical characteristics of coconut oil are entirely different from those of any oil or fat that is produced in the United States. There is no oil or fat of domestic production that has a melting point as high as coconut oil. The melting point is 76~, and that INDEPENDENCE FOR, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 155 means that that oil will melt at body temperature. It possesses many characteristics that our domestic oils are totally lacking in. Coconut oil is used in various products in this country to impart qualities which can not be obtained from the use of any other oil. It is the essential lathering agent in soap. It would be absolutely impossible to make a laundry or toilet soap that would lather, without coconut oil. In many other products it is absolutely indispensable. It is used in many new kinds of biscuits that you gentlemen are all familiar with, such as Nabisco and other wafers. All those various products with cream fillings are made principally with coconut oil. There is absolutely nothing produced in this country that can take the place of that oil. The claim has been put forth by the agricultural interests in this country that coconut oil is a great menace to all our domestically produced oils and fats. The economics of the oils and fats situation in this country make it necessary to divide these oils and fats into four major groups, according to the usages to which the principal products are put, and that determines the factor of competition-not the oil. But how do the finished products come in competition with one another? In the first group we have what we call the edible fats. That means butter, and fat that can be used on the table, or as a spread for bread. We have butter and oleomargarine. They are the two major fats, and practically the only two in the edible fat category. There is no element of real competition between margarin and dairy butter. Senator BRoussARD. Mr. Brown, is it not a fact that margarin, when made with coconut oil, competes with vegetable fats produced in this countrv? Mr. BROWN. The vegetable fats that are produced in this country, Senator, are not suitable for the production of margarin. They do not possess the necessary characteristics. Senator BROUssARD. Cottonseed oil was used formerly. Mr. BROWN. In the old days. Senator BROvSSARD. You have displaced cottonseed oil with this coconut oil. Mr. BROWN. No, sir. There has been a great change in the demand on the part of the public. In the old days we had the animal margarine which was made from oleo oil and stearin from the packing houses, and with it we combined some cottonseed oil. The hardness of the oleo stearate, which is the stearin and the oil combined, was sufficient to carry some of the liquid cottonseed oil. But in the meantime we found a better outlet for cottonseed oil, in the manufacture of vegetable lard, which is a substitute for hog lard. Our entire production of cottonseed oil to-day is going into the manufacture of vegetable lard. It has found the highest plane of usage that could possibly be found for it, and in that field of usage our entire crop of cottonseed oil is going into this edible product. Senator TYDINGS. There is more of a market for that kind of lard than there is for the margarin, is there not? Mr. BROWN. They are used for entirely different purposes, Senator. 156 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator TYDINGS. I mean the volume that originally went into margarin and such things you are now putting into this lard? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. You use a greater volume now than you did. Mr. BROW-N. We use it all. In the old days they used to burn cottonseed in the South. It was a nuisance. They even had local legislation against dumping it around in the fields, and the soap maker took hold of it and developed it, and the edible man took hold of it and developed it, and it is now in the highest sphere of use that can possibly be found for it. Every drop of its oil is being used in that sphere of usage. Coconut oil spulters and foams if it comes in contact with any food that contains moisture, such as potatoes. It is l1ot a good oil to use for those purposes. Cottonseed oil and hog lard are essentially frying and shortening fats. Coconut oil has no shortening properties. Hog lard and vegetable lard made from cottonseed oil supply the Nation's demand for shortenin and for frying fat; 60 per cent of the coconut oil is used in soap. for its latlering qualities, and on account of its color. The demand for soaps has grown from the old yellow laundry soap to the white soap, and no oil except coconut oil will produce that white color and give the desired lathering qualities. So, 60 per cent of all the coconut oil that comes into this country rgoes into soap; 24 per cent of it is going into margarin, and the balance is going into miscellaneous products, such as these creatls that are used in filling biscuits and in other products where it is absolutely indispensable. There is no other single oil that can take its place. Senator V\ANDENBERG. Your argument is essentially an argument in favor of free trade in coconut oil. Mr. BROWN. We believe we have built up a very happy relationship with the Philippines, in the copra and coconut oil business. It is a great boon to this country. We need that oil. If we impose a duty of 1 cent or 10 cents a pound on it, the American consumers must pay the duty, and it will have no price elevating effect on the production of any American farm. We have built up that happy relationship, and this supply of copra and coconut oil that we have in the Philippine Island is one of the greatest assets we could possibly have. If we did not have it we should have to turn backwards to find it, or to develop it in some way, because there is none of that; commodity produced in this country. Senator VANDENBERG. You would not say that this committee is entitled to settle the question of Philippine independence on the basis of domestic soap, would you? Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Senator TYDINGS. But it ought to be considered. Mr. BROWN.. All these things should be considered. We feel particularly concerned to point this out, due to the fact that the farmers of the country have been down here to Washington in connection with the last two tariffs, and have been making absolutely unfair claims about the competitive nature of foreign oils and fats. Many of our industries have already suffered grievous injury on account of these absolutely silly and idle claims that have no foundation in fact. made by men who have not even taken the trouble to find out whether they were true or not. INDEPENDENCE FORE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 157 The CHAIRMAN. Do you deal in cottonseed oil? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; to some extent. The CHAIRMAN. What other oils and fats do you deal in? Mr. BROWN. All of them-coconut oil, palm-kernel oil, soyabean oil, peanut oil, cottonseed oil, and fish oils. Even some of the fish-oil producers have been enlisted in this propaganda to fight this great menace of coconut oil. As a matter of fact, the hydrogenated fish oil would find no outlet in soap unless there were some coconut oil to go with it and make it lather. Instead of fighting an enemy they have the fish-oil producers fighting a good friend. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you agree with Mr. Kellogg, that if we were to do this thing progressively over a series of years, we might readjust ourselves to the situation? Mr. BROWN. I do not see much need to readjust ourselves economically. I think it is a political question. I think the status of our present trade relations with the Philippine Islands should be preserved forever. Senator TYDINGS. Regardless of independence? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Senator TYDINGS. In other words, if it were possible to give independence and have the trade relations, by treaty or otherwise, remain the same, you would be satisfied that no harm could be done to the United States? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. If independence is granted on the basis of intelligent investigation, and soundly, I think that is true. I know nothing about political conditions in the islands. I do not know whether the Philippine people have arrived at the point where they are capable of self-government or not. Personally, I have my own doubts about that. But, at any rate, I do know that we have people capable of ascertaining that. If they are entitled to their independence, nothing should be done to disturb our wonderful trade relations with the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. DO you handle any Cuban imports? Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Senator BROUSSARD. Are you interested in plants in the Philippines Mr. BROWN. No, sir. Senator BROUSSARD. You are merely a dealer. Mr. PBROWN. No; I am not a dealer, Senator. I am just a poor broker. I did not mean to answer you facetiously, but in handling oils and fats, I have been a broker for about 20 years, and it has taken me into the oil and fat business all over the world. I have made a very close study of the economics of it. I have worked with the Food Institute of the Leland Stanford University, and somehow or other, when anybody in the trade wants to find out about oil and fat, he usually calls me in. I have made a deep study of it, and I really feel as though I know something about it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the relative cost of production of coconut oil in the Philippines and in Java? Mr. BROWN. The United States Tariff Commission made a very thorough survey of the cost of crushing all oil seeds in the United States and in the leading competing countries, depending upon what particular variety of oil seed was involved, and their report showed 158 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS that the cost of producing coconut oil in the United States by our domestic mills, as compared with the production of the oil in the Philippines, was approximately the same. There were advantages on both sides. and the advantages on one side just about balanced those on the other. The cost of producing coconut oil in Java was slightly less than in either the Philippines or the United States. The CHAIRMAN.. Do you think that the difference between the cost of production of coconut oil in Java and in the Philippines is sufficient to cause economic hardship in the Philippines if they were put on the same basis so far as the tariff is concerned? Mr. BROWN. That would be the result, but it would not be due to the reason you have just mentioned, Senator. The principal sphere of consumption for oils and fats of the world is in Europe, where there are 450,000,000 people on the European Continent to be fed. We have 120,00,0000 in the United States. So, that is the center of consumption. Europe not only has a shortage of oils and fats. but they have a shortage of animal-feed stuff. Europe endeavors to supply her demand for oils and fats and feedstuff simultaneously. She prefers to import the oil seed and separate the seed into oil and cake, because she has use for both products. and the transportation problem is somewhat simpler. The CHAIRMAN. Does that apply also to copra? Mr. BROWN. It applies to all oil seeds. The CHAIRMAxN. I have never heard copra referred to as oil seed. Mr. BROWN. It is really not a proper term. It is an oleaginous material. Europe prefers to bring all her oils and fats, to the greatest extent possible, in the form of seed, or the oleaginous material. In the United States we have no shortage of feedstuffs. We have a cotton crop that averages from 9,000,000 to 18,000,000 bales, and, as an incidental and unavoidable by-product of that crop and our domestic flaxseed crop, we have an exportable surplus of about 500,000 tons of oil cake produced here, absolutely not subject to any control. They are incidental by-products of these other crops. Consequently, we have to ship to Europe 500,000 tons of oil cake that are just thrown on our hands. If we bring too much copra into this country, or any other oil seed. the oil content of the seed is anywhere from 12 per cent, in the case of soyabeans, to 63 per cent in the case of copra, so that every time we bring in an oilseed we bring from 85 to 37 per cent of an article which we (lo not want, and of which we already have a glut. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you quite understood my question. I am particularly interested in seeing that the Philippine Islands, which have been under our rule now for more than 30 years, are not seriously harmed by any legislation that we may pass. Mr. BRowN. I was just going to make that point. The CHAlIRMAN. It has been contended that to grant them ilmmediate independence would cause great economic suffering, and that is admlitted by the various representatives of the Philippine Government that are here asking for independence. Whatever legislation we pass should be of such nature and in such form as not to cause suffering to the people who have been our wards for 30 years. I am asking you, as an export in fats and oils-and you say you have studied conditions all over the world-whether the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 159 erection of a tariff barrier, by tariff autonomy or by independence, is going to cause suffering in the Philippines by increasing the ability of other countries to compete successfully and seriously with the production of Philippine coconut oil and its sale in this country. Mr. BROWN. I was just going to express a conclusion based on my remarks about the cake, Senator. The point is that we do not want the cake. If we do not separate the oil in the Philippines, the copra goes from the Philippines to Europe, because Europe wants to buy the entire article in its natural form and do the separating in their own mills. If we put a duty against the Philippines on coconut oil, we will only take a small portion of our coconut oil from them, because it will be in the open market, and we can go and get it anywhere we want. The CHAIRMAN. Where would we probably get it? Mr. BROWN. From Europe, or from Java, or any other countries where it is crushed, because these other countries which will crush it under those conditions will have imported the copra, to a market where both products are salable, and the matter of shipping only a small portion of the total product back to us in the form of oil is no disadvantage, as compared with the great disadvantage that the mills in Manila would have in being obliged to compete in the Islands with European crushers fox the purchase of copra. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is your opinion that if a tariff barrier were erected on this product, coconut oil, it would result in the Philippine Islands being obliged to sell the product of their coconut groves in the shape of copra? Mr. BROWN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Rather than in the shape of oil. Mr. BROWN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And would therefore hurt their oil-crushing business. Mr. BROWN. Yes; it would. The CHAIRMAN. But would not necessarily hurt the business of raising coconuts. Mr. BROWN. No, sir. They have an open market now for copra. They ship copra to Europe. They ship the bulk of it to the United States. They have the open market for copra, and they have the American market for their oil, and we can see that that is a highly advantageous arrangement for everybody. The CHAIRMAN. It would hurt our local manufacturers of coconut oil? Mr. BROWN. No. Our local manufacturers and our manufacturers in Manila are in happy harmony on this whole proposition. We have mills in this country on the Pacific coast which are able to import a fair amount of copra and to dispose of a little copra cake on the Pacific coast on account of the high rail freight from the Cotton Belt to the coast on our cottonseed cake, and they are doing a nice volume of business. They are buying copra in the Philippines in competition with the mills which are located in Manila. Senator BROUSSARD. Your contention, if I understand you, is that you can take copra from Java, the Philippines, or elsewhere, send it to Europe, crush it, and return that oil here cheaper than you can crush the oil in the Philippines and send it here. 160 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. BROWN. No: cheaper than we can obtain our oil supply by bringing the copra here and separating it. Senator BROUSSARD. Why? Mr. BROWN. Because we have no market here for the cake. We do not need that cake. Senator BROUSSARD. The previous witness claims that they have mills down there, and, of course, they could send their oil here as well as import the European oil. Mr. BROWN. All the copra crushers of the world would have entree to this market for oil. That would divert business from the mills in the Philippines, and those mills that would compete here in sending their oil to this country are in a more advantageous position in respect to the cake, which is an important product. The CHAIRMAN. Is the price of copra in Batavia any different from the price of copra in Manila? Mr. BROWN. The difference in quality considered, they are on a parity. They have an open market. Philippine copra is quoted iii London, New York, and San Francisco every day. The CHAIRMAN. Which country has a sufficient quantity production of copra to influence the price more seriously. Java or the Philippines? Mr. BROWN-. The largest production of copra in any one single country is in the Philippines. Philippine copra is the dominating article in the American market, and Straits copra in the British market. The CIAIRAMJAN. How much copra is sent from the Philippines to Europe? Mr. BROWN. It varies in accordance with market conditions. The exports to Eu:rope this past year were about 21,000 tons-not a great deal. We took most of it. Out of about 525,000 tons produced in 1928. there was somewhere in tlhe neighborhood of 30,000 tons that went to Europe. The CHAIRMAN. Are freight rates higher from the Philippines to Europe on copra going by way of the Suez Canal than they are coming to this country? Mir. BROWN. They are from the Philippines, but the rates from the colonial possessions of foreign nations are better. The Englilh and Dutch steamship lines grant rebates to the copra shippers in tile Dutch East Indies and Ceylon. If the shipper pays the conference rate throughout the year and does not ship any copra by any tranp steamers at a reduced rate, at the end of the year the steamship companies will rebate him 10 per cent on the entire freight mloney that he has paid on copra for that year. The CHAIRMAN. Would that be a disadvantage to the Philippine copra business in case of independence? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir; it would, decidedly so. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you know whether any of this copra that comes to the United States comes in United States Shipping Board vessels? Mr. BROWN. Yes. sir: a great deal of it. Of course, since the Shipping Board has disposed of many ships on the Atlantic, more of that freight is coming in American bottoms that are operated by private shipping firms. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 161 Senator VANDENBERG. I mean ships that are still operated by the Merchant Fleet Corporation. Mr. BROWN. Operated by the corporation? Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. Mr. BROWN. I could not say. I never made an analysis from that standpoint, but most of the copra from the Philippines comes in American bottoms, and what proportion of those ships are operated by the Shipping Board and what proportion are operated by private owners now, I would not attempt to say. Senator VANDENBERG. I was thinking that the Shipping Board ships are operated at a substantial loss, which is paid out of the Treasury of the United States, and that therefore you are the beneficiary of practically a direct subsidy. Mr. BROWN. The rates on copra and coconut oil are competitive, Senator. Mr. Kellogg's company just bought five tank steamers to operate in the trade, on the basis of freight rates charged by the Shipping Board, and if the Government ships are unable to make a profit, I would not say that that could be definitely charged against their taking low rates. Senator VANDENBERG. It would be charged against the inefficiency of Government ownership. Mr. BROWN. That would be my guess. The CHAIRMAN. Let us not open the floodgates. Senator HAWEs. Mr. Brown, your opposition to these various resolutions is based on the fear or the apprehension of a tariff duty on these oils which would raise the price of your raw material and interfere with your business, but, of course, that would depend upon the action of Congress. Senator BROUSSARD. That is wrong, absolutely. Senator HAwEs. It might place a duty or it might not. It might leave the situation exactly as it is, but the basis of your opposition is that a duty would be placed upon these oils. Mr. BROWN. I did not intend to enter any definite opposition, Senator. I merely say that the whole question must be decided with due regard to our traditional desire to help all people, and it must be settled with due regard to an accurate knowledge of trade conditions and our trade with the islands, and when people come down here and give a lot of misinformation about coconut oil and other products, that should be corrected, so that when this committee and Congress pass on this thing, they should have all the information, and they should have correct information. Senator HAWES. I understand that, Mr. Brown, but the point I am trying to make clear is this: It seems to be assumed that after Philippine independence the tariff wall will be erected. It may or it may not be. But that is a matter that Congress will later determine. Mr. BROWN. My own feeling is that if the Philippines are not liberated too quickly tariff matters in this country will assume more sane proportions than we have at the-present time, and it may automatically work out on a sensible basis. Senator HAWES I hope you are right about that. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you very much. The next witness is Mr. J. D. Craig, of Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), of Buffalo. 162 INDEPENDENCE FOI TIlE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS STATEMENT OF J. D. CRAIG, OF SPENCER, KELLOGG & SONS (INC.), BUFFALO, N. Y. Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Craig, do you represent the same people Mr. Kellogg did? Mr. CRAIG. I am employed by Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.). The CHAIRMAN. Have you been in the Philippines, Mr. Craig? Mr. CRAIG. No. I merely want to present a few facts to show how coconut oil is not interchangeable with other fats and oils in American agriculture, and give the technical reasons why. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything to offer specifically in regard to any one of these bills? Mr. CRAIG. No. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything specific to offer in regard to independence for the Philippines? Mr. CRAIG. I would not feel satisfied to discuss that one way or the other. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be satisfied to have your brief printed in the record in full, without being presented to the committee at this time? Mr. CRAIG. If they get the facts. The CHAIRMAN. Would the committee be satisfied? This witness offers something in contravention to what was offered on the floor the other day, I assume, and what has been presented before the Ways and Means Committee of the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate, as to the interchangeability of coconut oil. It does not appear to the chairman that it is necessary to present it to the committee except in the form of a brief. Senator TYDINGS. I think it ought to be filed. We ought to have the information. The CHAIRArAN. We will have it printed at this point. Mr. CRAIG. That is satisfactory to me. (The brief referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) BRIEF OUTLINING THE COCONUT OIL AND COPRA CRUSHING INDUSTRY IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECTION I THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT OIL AND COPRA CRUSIING INDUSTRY CONSIDERED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES We dlesire to present to your honorable committee the following facts and data pertaining to the matter of competition between animal and vegetable oils produced by American agriculture in the United States, and copra and coconut oil produced in the Philippine Islands and imported into the United States. ERRONEOUS CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE Representatives of American Agriculture have presented grossly erroneous claims to Congress, claiming that the duty-free entry of copra and coconut oil from the Philippine Islands results in destructive competition to oils and fats produced in the United States by American agriculture. These erroneous contentions are advanced, chiefly by representatives of agriculture who have a very limited knowledge of the economics of oils and fats and who have no knowledge of the technology of oils and fats. The actual facts concerning the technology and limited interchangeability, in usage, between various varieties of oils and fats prove conclusively that INDEPENDENCE FORI THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 163 American agriculture is suffering no direct competition whatever from the duty-free importation of copra and coconut oil from the Philippine Islands. While on the other hand, the duty-free importation of copra and coconut oil from the Philippines presents a great benefit to all American consumers of laundry and toilet soaps, margarine, confectionery, crackers and biscuits, and other articles in which coconut oil is an indispensable ingredient. Of these consumers American agriculture constitutes an important part. OILS AND FATS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES DO NOT POSSESS ANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COCONUT OIL AND CAN NOT BE USED AS SUBSTITUTES FOR COCONUT OIL In order to determine or refute the existence of competition between copra and coconut oil from the Philippines and animal and vegetable oils produced in the United States by American agriculture, it is necessary to set forth a proper analysis of the oils and fats produced in the United States and the consumable products in which the domestic oils and fats are used as ingredients. The principal outlet into consumption in the United States for domesticproduced oils and fats is in the following groups of consumable products: I. Table fats-butter and margarine. II. Cooking fats-shortening (hog lard, vegetable lard, cooking oils, and salad oils). III. Soap-soap making oils and fats. IV. Drying oils-paint and varnish and linoleum. I. TABLE FATS —BUTTER AND MARGARINE The principal fat consumed in the United States in this group is butter which is used principally as a spread for bread. The annual production of 'butter in the United States, including the production of creameries and the production on farms, is approximately 2,100,000,000 pounds as estimated by the United States Department of Agriculture. The Amercan dairyman or butter producer has been given every possible protection against competition of all kinds in the form of high-import duties on butter, special taxation on margarine, and special legislation against coloring margarine. The United States import duty on butter is 12 cents per pound and the American dairyman is thus highly protected against the importation of foreign butter. As a result of this high importation duty on butter, the wholesale price on his commodity at New York during September to May has averaged around 45 cents per pound for the years 1925 to 1928. Under the impetus of this high rate of duty, the production of butter has been very materially increased. This increase of production, combined with the low market for feed stuffs this year, has resulted in the wholesale price of butter declining recently to 35 cents per pound at New York. Even at this relatively low price of 35 cents per pound, as compared with the higher price of previous years, the price of butter is so much higher than the price of margarine that no real competition can be said to exist between butter and margarine. The wholesale price of standard brands of margarine at New York, as of this date, is 17 cents per pound, while the wholesale price of 92-score butter is 371/2 cents per pound. Obviously no rate of duty could be imposed upon copra or coconut oil that would be sufficient to increase the cost of coconut oil used in the manufacture of margarine to a point where the great difference between the cost of margarine and the cost of butter would be sufficiently reduced to, in any way, curtail the demand for margarine. As of this date, the wholesale cost of standard brands of vegetable margarine at New York is 201/2 cents per pound lower than the wholesale price of 92-score butter. COCONUT OIL (AND COPRA) DOES NOT CAUSE INJURIOUS COMPETITION TO THE AMERICAN DAIRY INTERESTS IN THE FIELD OF TABLE FATS Per statistics issued by the United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Internal Revenue, during the month of October, 1929, the production of uncolored oleomargaine in the United States was 34,751,964 pounds and in the production of this quantity 18,802,207 pounds of coconut oil were used. Therefore 92109 —3 —PT 2 4 164 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS coconut oil was approximately 53 per cent of the total ingredients used by weight. Should import duties be imposed upon coconut oil imported from the Philippines as oils, or in the form of copra at the rate of 2 cents per pound, the cost of producing margarine would be increased by only 1 cent per pound. If a duty on copra or coconut oil from the Philippines should be imposed that would be equal to 100 per cent ad valorem on coconut oil, this duty would amount to about 6.25 cents per pound, and would result in increasing the cost of producing margarine by about 3.25 cents per pound. (The value of coconut oil ex mill Philippine Islands this date is approximately 6.25 cents per pound.) With butter enjoying such preference from American consumers as to be salable at 3712 cents per pound wholesale at New York as against standard brands of mgargarine being sold wholesale at 17 cents per pound New York, it is absurd for American butter producers to claim that the price of their product is avoidably suffering from the competition of margarine. The present extremely low price of butter is so much higher than the normal wholesale cost of margarine that it is absurd for American dairymen to claim that any possible inflation in the cost of coconut oil by import duties could result in producing any determinable increase in the price of butter. On the other hand, the quantity of refined coconut oil consumed in the United States in the manufacture of margarine during the 12 months October. 1928, to September, 1929, inclusive, was 177,854,000 pounds. Calculating that 10 per cent by weight was lost in refining the crude coconut oil from which this refined coconut oil was produced, it can be stated that 197,615,550 pounds of crude coconut oil were consumed in the manufacture of margarine during the 12 months. If an impIort duty of 2 cents per pound were to be levied on this coconut oil, most of which was imported from the Philippine Isl-inds in the form of coconut oil and in the form of Philippine copra crushed in American oil mills. the consumers of margarine would be taxed approximately $4,000,000. This taxation, or any tariff taxation on coconut oil from the Philippine Islands. at either a higher or a lower rate. is completely unjustifiable. as it would produce absolutely no benefit to the American dairyman and would needlessly increase the cost of margarine to the American consumers. and especially to a large portion who can not afford to enjoy a full ration of this butter substitute if its cost is inflated by taxation. Per the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. the total yearly production of butter in the United States. amounting to about 1,000,000 tons. has a market value of $925.000.000. Is it not absurd for American dairymen to contend that the price of their butter crop. having;I value of $925.000,000. can be enhanced by the imposition of an import tax amounting to $4.000.000 on the quantity of coconut oil which is used annually in the production of margarine? The fallacious contentions which have been put forth by representatives of the dairy industry concerning the menace of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine lsland(s a.re so absurd and so contrary to the readily accessible facts that tlhey do a great injustice to the coconut oil industry. The American dairy industry is positively suffering no avoidable competition from the duty-free importation of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine Islands. COCONUT OIL (AND COPRA) DOES NOT COMPETE WITH OTHER VEGETABLE OILS OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IN THE FIELDS OF TABLE FATS (BUTTER AND MARGARINE) Upon examination we find that American growers of other oleaginous materials are likewise suffering no competition in the American field of table fats (butter and margarine) from the duty-free importation of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine Islands. No other kind of vegetable oils produced in the United States possesses the necessary characteristics for margarine making. Hence these other varieties of domestic-produced oils can not be used in any appreciable quantities in the manufacture of margarine. Peantut oil.-A very small quantity of peanut oil is used in margarine for the purpose of producing the proper texture. Coconut oil of itself has a tendency to crystallize or become grainy at ordinary room temperatures: therefore, to give it a smooth unctuous texture a small percentage of a soft vegetable oil is added and peanut o'l is the oil most w dely used for this purpose. The entire quantity of peanut oil consumed in margarine during the 12 months. October, 1928, to September, 1929, was 6,606,781 pounds or 2.4 per cent of all of the other oils and fats used in the production of margarine. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 165 To explain further our statement made in a preceding paragraph that other American produced vegetable oils do not possess the necessary characteristics for margarine making, it is necessary to say just a word concerning why these oils are different. The principal vegetable oils produced by American growers are cottonseed, peanut, and corn oil. These oils, classified as semidrying oils, are liquid at ordinary temperatures because they contain appreciable percentages of unsaturated fatty glycerides, all of which are liquid at low temperture. If any appreciable quantity of these oils were used in margarine, the melting point of the margarine would be lowered to such an extent that it would liquefy almost immediately upon being subjected to ordinary room temperature. Coconut oil on the other hand, classified as a nondrying oil, has a solidifying point much higher than these American produced vegetable oils. The melting point of coconut oil is approximately 76~ F. The reason for the higher melting point of coconut oil is due to the fact that it does not contain any appreciable percentage of the unsaturated fatty glycerides. Practically all of the saturated fatty glycerides have solidifying points much higher than those of the unsaturated fatty glycerides. Nature has combined the saturated fatty glycerides in coconut oil in such proportions that it is about the only vegetable oil, the chemical characteristics of which make it suitable for use in the manufacture of margarine. The chemical characteristics possessed by the other American-produced vegetable oils-cottonseed, peanut, and corn oils-make them of much greater value for use in other fields, particularly in the field of cooking fats-shortening. cooking oils, and salad oils-a field in which coconut oil is entirely unsuited, as will be shown in a later section. At this point it should be well to point out that the American peanut grower is not intentionally producing 1 pound of peanut oil. The entire peanut crop is produced in response to the demand for peanuts from the American confectiontry and peanut-butter industries. American peanut growers are protected by an import duty of 6 cents per pound on the shelled peanuts and 4 cenits pec pound on peanuts in the shell. The crushing of peanuts in the United States for their oil content is limited to the crushing of "splits" and damaged kernels. which are segregated when the peanuts are shelled and graded for the confectionelry industry. Under the protective influence of the high rate of duty on shelled peanuts and peanuts in the shell the American grower receives much higher prices for his crop from the American candy and peanut-butter manufacturers than the oil mills could afford to pay. In crushing peanuts for oil this oil must be sold in competition with cottonseed oil crushed from American cottonseed. No American farmer can afford to grow peanuts for crushing purposes, as peanuts can not be grown for their oil contelt in competition with cottonseed oil and hog lard. Were American farmers to grow peanuts as an oilseed they would be compelled to market it in competition with cottonseed oil obtained from cottonseed. which is an incidental by-product of the American cotton crop, and in competition with hog lard. which is a product of hog raisers. The competition which the Amelican peanut grower has to meet is therefore not with Philippine coconut oil (and cop;ra) but with the other American produced oils and fats-cottonseed oil and hog lard. Cottonseed oil.-American cottonseed oil likewise meets no colmpetition from Philippine coconut oil (and copra) in the American field of table fats (butter and margarine). As explained in the preceding paragraphs, American cottonseed oil possesses characteristics (its high content of unsaturated fatty glycerides) which make it particularly suitable for the manufacture of vegetable lard (shortening, cooking oil. and salad oil). These quli!-ies possessed by cottonseed oil are so desirable in the manufacture of shortening that practically the entire production of cotton oil is now consumed in the production of vegetable lard or cooking oils. In the field of table fats (butter and margarine) there is no competition whatever between coconut oil (and copra) and American cottonseed oil. Corna oil.-Corn oil is produced from the germ of corn and is a by-product of the manufactured corn starch. Corn oil is valuable as a liquid cookins oil and for the manufacture of mayonnaise or salad dressings. Coconut oil can not be used to advantage in either of these two fields. As a cooking oil it foams, sputters, and smokes to an appreciable extent at comparatively low temperatures. For an oil to be used satisfactorily in the preparation of a salad dressing, it must be easily emulsified with the other ingredients used in the preparation of this dressing and must not separate on standing. 166 INDEEPDIENCE FOR. THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Coconut oil is emulsified only with difficulty. Upon standing, because of its much higher melting point, it tends to solidify when subjected to the low temperatures unler w\hich salad d1reSsilgs are ordin-trily kept, and tiius produces a very unsatisfactory texture and appearance in the mayona;ise. The price of corn oil is controlled by the combined influence of hog lard and cottonseed oil. from -which it can be readily seen that the competition corn oil has is with other American produced fats and oils-hog lard, cottonseed oil. and peanut oil. It suffers no competition from coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine Islands because coconut oil and corn oil are not interchangeable. SUIMMARY OF POINTS COVERED IN FIELD OF I, TABL E FATS (B TT'E.R AND MARGARINEi In the American field of table fats (butter and margarine) it is easily seen that the assertions of the American dairymen, that their product, butter, is meeting injurious competition from Philippine coconut oil (and copra), are not founded on true facts. On the contrary, it can be shown that coconut oil is really aiding the American butter producers, for many of them are selling their butter at relatively high prices and buying margarine at much lower cost for their own consumption. Furthermore, margarine is a product which creates a market for considerable edible tallow, oleo oil, oleostearine, and skimmed milk, a mater al which otherwise would have no appreciable value. all of which are the products of American agriculture. The facts and figures presented show that the normal price level of butter. even with the market variations, is so much higher than the price level of margarine with its somewhat narrower market variations that no real coimpetition can be said to exist between butter and margarine. Obviously, therefore, no rate of duty can be imposed upon co)pra or coconut o 1 that would be sufficient to increase the cost of coconut oil to a point where the great difference between the cost of tbutter and the cost of margarine would be sufficiently reduced to in any way curta'l the demand for margarine. Just as the American dairyman is not suffering any injurious competition from Philipp ne coconut oil (and copra), neither are the oil products of the American cotton grower, the Aimericanii peanut grower. the Amnerican corn grower, and the American hog raiser meeting any competition from the dutyfree importation of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippines in the field of table fats (butter and margarine). because the chemical and physical characterist'cs of these other oils make them entirely unsatisfactory for use in table fats, but on the other hand make them of much greater value in the field of cooking fats-shortening, cooking oils, and salad oils-a field in which coconut oil can not be used. Therefore, the much-d'scussed menace to American farmers. of the Philippine coconut oil (and copra) is absolutely without any foundation or fact. II. COOKING FATS-SIIORTENING (H10G LARD. VEGETABLE LARD, COOKING OILS AND SALAD OILS) In the field of consumption of cooking fats in the 1Ulited States, the principal consumable products are refined hog lard, vegetable lard. and liquid cooking oils. For cooking and shortening purposes, these products must possess the necessary shortening qualities and must be white in color to conform to the long-established standards of the American housewife. Furthermore, these products must not foam or sputter when heated as for frying. Hog fat. when rendered into lard, is the oldest of these cooking fats. Lard substitutes or vegetable lard, made from American cottonseed oil, has been developed since 1880 and is now a full-pledged competitor of hog lard in the home, restaurant, or commercial bakery. Cottonseed oil in its liquid state is also used for shortening and other cooking purposes. COCONUT OIL IS NOT SUITABLE FOR USE IN COOKING FATS AND OILS —HENC\CE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH THE FATS AND OILS OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE USED IN THIS FIELD A consideration of the economic phases will show conclusively that cooking fats and oils produced by American agriculture suffer no competition from Philippine coconut oil (and copra). Furthermore, a consideration of the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 167 chemical compositions of these fats and oils as compared with coconut oil will show the impossibility of interchanging coconut oil with any of these fats and oils of American agriculture in the preparation of the food products in which they are used as the fat base. The average person, naturally, knows little of these chemical differences and it is evident that some of the representatives of the agricultural interests have practically no knowledge of these fats or many of their erroneous contentions would not have been advanced. From the chemical compositions of the individual fat and oils as given in Table A following, it can be readily seen that coconut oil contains large percentages of fatty glycerides not present in any of the fats and oils produced by American agriculture and does not contain in any appreciable percentages the fatty glycerides which are the principal components in the fats and oils of Atmerican agriculture. TABLE A.-Chemical composition of different fats and oils Coconut ettdn- Corn Peanut Lard Glycerides of saturated fatty acids in- Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Arachidic ----------------------- 0.6 0.5 4. 0 -- Stearic - -------------- 5.0 2.0 3.5 6.5 15.0 alitic - ------------------------------------- 7. 0 20.0 8.0 8. 5 24.5 \ AMyristic -- ----------------------------------- 20. 0 1.4 --- —- -- Lauric-. — - ------------ ------------------ 45.0 --- Capric.....-..... ------------------------------- 10. 0 Caprylic --------------------------------— i 9.0 o ------ --------- ------ Caproic --- —---------------------------------- 2.0 ------------------------------ --- Unsaturated fatty acids- Oleic -.. --- —--------------------- I 2.0 35.0 46.0 53.0 50.5 Linolic- 42. 0 41.5 25. 0 10.0 Linolic ----------------------------------------- - - 42.0 41. 5 25. 0 10. 0 Lignoceric ------------------------------------------------------.5. 3. 0 Solidifying point inDegrees F ------------------------ - 75-76 32-39 10-14 28-37 85-95 Iodine value --- —-- ---------------------------- 7.5-8. 5 105-115 115-125 88-95 56-64 The vegetable oils of American agriculture contain appreciable percentages of the fatty glycerides of oleic and linolic acids, but not such a high percentage of fatty glycerides of palmitic and stearic acids as are present in hog lard. By the process of hydrogenation a portion of the oleic fatty glycerides is converted into the fatty glycerides of stearic acids, and practically all of the linolic acid is converted into fatty glycerides of oleic and stearic acids. After the process of hydrogenation the chemical composition of these vegetable oils approaches more nearly that of lard in that it contains more of the fatty glycerides of oleic, palmitic, and stearic acids and less of the fatty glycerides of linolic acid. It is common knowledge that the fats and oils which possess the most desirable properties for use in shortening and cooking oils contain large percentages of oleic, palmitic, and stearic acids. If one will compare the analysis given on coconut oil with those given on the other vegetable oils, it will be readily seen that coconut oil contains only a very small percentage of palmitic and stearic acid and an even smaller amount of oleic-only 2 per cent-with absolutely no linolic. It is, therefore, impossible to increase the oleic, palnitic, and stearic acid contents by converting through the process of hydrogenation any of the unsaturated fatty glycerides for the simple reason that nature has not put these unsaturated fatty glycerides into coconut oil. In the preparation of salad oil the oil base must have properties which render it easily emulsifiable. Oils which are most easily emulsified contain appreciable percentages of the fatty glycerides of oleic and linolic acids. When compar.ng the analysis of coconut oil with those of the vegetable oils of American agriculture as given in Table A, it is seen coconut oil contains no linolic and practically no oleic-the 2 per cent of the latter actually present being too small an amount to impart any emulsifying properties to the oil. Just a word should be said in explanation of the properties imparted to coconut oil by its peculiar composition, which consists of a number of lower molecular weight saturated fatty glycerides, principally those of myristic, lauric, capric, and caprylic acids. These lower molecular weight fatty glycerides tend to be more volatile than the higher molecular weight fatty glycerides occurring in the other vegetable oils or in hog lard. Upon heating they have 168 IN1DEPESNDENCE FORI THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN DS the objectionable properties o!f smoking at much lower temperatures an1i, "ft any moisture is present, will sputter and foaml to a much greater extent rth.-ny of the other oils. Since coconut oil does not have the required shortening lroperties, is not easily emulsified with other materials, and has a tendency to sputter.,foatm. aind smoke to a great extent, due to its entirely different composition, it is readlily seen that it is not interchangeable with any of the fats and oils of lAmerican agricullture and can not be used in the field of cookings tits. To verify the truth of the above statement it is only ncceessarly i-() rr tor InunImeL'o( s unsIucceessful efforts on the part of certain iner(clhandisiog comp)anies to sell coconut oil forl various uses in the field of )cookih,'g faits. Numer)ou r Eoas(ons f( r its f'tlnue lavx(- been g.ven. It did not impart requlisite shorltelniig ilPr':lr ties whenl ilcorporIiate( in the dough mixturelll; it did not.ream lprop-rly: it hlal a teielnct- be e itlher too hartd or a complete liquid xwithin oto) ni.Irow t t'ttofgef teillmperaturel. There is no wide in-between state,1 which it ("a1 ),< (ealled1 t semiliquid. These results are easily explained by ctxa.11minin: thVe che.lmeial cOn.stants of the dll ifferent oils, as shown in Talble A. The solidifying loints (i1f all ofc the ~ats and oils of Ameri cai agricullture lav r1:Ier t liei variati;,.s is also true of thei io(lie nitbers. (Te idim OF COnINe' is i ln,of t lie Iic ttasurtll (,ed fatty glyeeriidest t, xlres sed a. i;- pr0,enta01, t4 rItwo tids uct iodil alsierbe( tt 100ariclre yi el i.) Tlh s widl rando inq thoi (lard inil co(ttns.t.ed ol s cm cred wkit the very natrrw r- e i tple lachl yea ('onts?1ts. no fo 'ooiut1 (il explains cocilusively\ why o('otilt oii atcr:;s it (de-; ier 3;in quickly from a soClid lform to a liquids or aain fto norte 1qui to a spcoui. Ct('ie. T(I IS N FobtaineO IN TforE COMouPETrTION BETWEEr eorted lARt AND '(TT1sNSEED OIL IN THE FIELDI OF COOKING FATS In tn the American field lf k ing t f at is l iesme fconrom 40ll 00.0 fa r i 55,000,ic hegetas whilh ar.e slaughtered eatc h ye ar and irom the seetd whi il obtained from our annual cotton crop of 9.000,000 to 18.000.000 bales. These two p cts o f Amet ern ican agriculture yield such a tremendous qu antity of lard and cottonseed oil for cooking purposes that we must export each year over 35.000 tons. or 70u.000.000 pouneds of hog lard to northern European countries. The price obtained in foreign countries for our exported lard establishes the price of this commodity in our omestsic market for home consumption, and in turn the price of hog lard in the home market is the controlling factor in the e rice of vegetable lard. Thus our market for hog lard and vegetable lar is on the international basis except during a few month s in the spring and coarly sumemer when our supply of cottonseed oil is small prior to the harvesttin of the new crop. During this period of temporary shortage otu cottonseed-,il market mnay be above the internationa l level. Coconu t oil is absolutely no factor in this field of cooking fats since it does not possess the chemical characteristics which are common to hog lard and vegetable lard made from cottonseed oil. On many occasions, when cottonseed oil has been very high in price on account of a precrop shortage, coconut oil has been available at 4 to 5 cents per pound less than the price of American cot toseed oil and yet practically no coconut oil has bee e in ithe manufacture of these lard products or cooking fats. There have been times during short intervals, when 2 or 3 per cent of coconut oil has been used in conjunction with 97 or 98 per cent of cottonseed oil in the manufacture of some grades of vegetable lard. Any greater percentage of coconut oil causes the resulting products to foam and sputter when heated and coconut oil, even in such small proportions as 2 or 3 per cent. is not considered as a suitable ingredient in the manufacture of lard substitutes. Whenever manufacturers have made these attempts to incorporate small quantities of coconut oil in their product tley have suffered considerable loss because the product was rejected by the consumer necessitating its return for reprocessing. The American hog raiser, through the medium of his large exports of hog lard to Europe, has always met the competition of all oils and fats in the open markets of Europe and will continue to do so. American hog lard has been exported in large quantities for many years. Furthermore, statistics show that the ratio of exports of hog lard to the total production has remained fairly constant during the past 25 years, exclusive of the war period, ranging between approximate limits of 30 to 40 per cent of the domestic production. There is thus no phase of competition within the United States between American hog lard and Americant cottonseed oil that can be talleviated by iii INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 169 posing any restrict'ons upon the importation of coconut oil from the Philippines or copra from other countries. In fact, in this field of cooking fats in the United States there is absolutely no competition whatever between hog lard, cottonseed oil, and coconut oil. The American cotton crop yields about 900 pounds of seed per each bale of staple ginned and approximately 200 pounds of seed per bale is reserved for planting the succeeding crop and for disappearance in unrecorded channels. Approximately 700 pounds of seed for each bale of cotton ginned is crushed by the cottonseed oil mills and produces approximately 105 pounds of cottonseed oil. The value of the cottonseed oil produced per bale of cotton ginned is about 6 per cent of the value of the staple. In other words, the American cotton grower is producing cotton staple and the cottonseed oil is relatively an insign'ficant by-product in this operation. For years cottonseed was burned for fuel in the South and even now is not an important factor in the growing of cotton. In this field of cooking fats American cottonseed oil is protected from any possible competition against substitution by any foreign vegetable oils of similar characteristics by the high duties of 4 cents per pound on peanut oil, 3 cents per pound on cottonseed oil. and 21/. cents per pound on soyblean oil. Thus the American cotton grower, since the tariff act of 1922. has enjoyed the most complete and highest measure of protection that could be devised against the introduction of any foreign vegetable oils into the United States which could be substituted for cottonseed oil in the manufacture of vegetable lard. Here again we must call attention to the fallacious assertions of American representatives of agriculture, who instill in the minds of cotton growers that the value of their by-product, cottonseed oil, is undermined by the Philippine coconut oil and copra which enters the United States free of duty. The facts are that the American cotton grower and hog-lard raiser do not meet any competition wltatever from coconut oil and copra, and there is absolutely no foundation in fact for the contentions of those who would place needless and destructive obstacles in the path of our valuable trade with the Phiiippine Islands. Peanut oil.-Although peanut oil is suitable as a substitute for cottonseed oil in the manufacture of vegetable lard, the production of peanut oil in the United States is so small that barely sufficient quantities are produced from the culls and damaged peanuts to supply the small amount needed in the production of margarine. The importation of foreign peanut oil for use as a substitute for cottonseed oil in the manufacture of vegetable lard is prohibited by the high duty of 4 cents per pound on peanut oil in the tariff act of 1922, which Congress proposes to continue in the new tariff law now before Congress. Corn oil.-Corn oil may be used in the manufacture of vegetable lard, but practically no corn oil is produced in foreign countries; furthermore, the United States import duty of 20 per cent ad valorem prohibits the entry of foreign corn oil into the United States for use as a substitute for cottonseed oil in the manufacture of vegetable lard. The principal use for corn oil, when refined, is for salad dressing and as a liquid cooking oil. Thus, in the field of cooking fats, American producers of hog lard and cottonseed oil are fully protected by extremely high duties upon all varieties of foreign oils, which are suitable for the manufacture of vegetable lard. In this field the competition arises exclusively between the large quantities of hog lard produced by American hog raisers and the large quantity of cottonseed oil which is recovered as a by-product from the American cotton crop. The hog raiser and cotton grower combined are producing such a large quantity of hog lard and vegetable lard that it is necessary to export from the United States to European countries over 350,000 tons of hog lard per year. III. SOAP-SOAP-MAKING OILS AND FATS In the great field of soap-making oils and fats American agriculturists are essentially interested in their capacity as consumers of tremendous quantities of laundry and toilet soaps. No American agriculturist is deliberately producing any oils or fats for use in the production of soap. All oils and fats when recoverable in their natural, good condition are suitable for edible purposes and are most valuable for use in edible products. The manufacture and distribution of soap at low cost is dependent upon a supply of oils and fats which have deteriorated from their virgin condition. 170 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANIDS Thus the manufacture of soap at reasonable prices is based upon the ability of the soapmaker to use oils and fats of all kinds which have so deteriorated in quality that they are unfit for food. The American soap-making industry receives practically no oils and fats from American producers except refuse oils and fats which are not suitable for edible usage. NO FATS AND OILS ARE INTENTIONALLY PRODUCED BY AMERICAN AGRICULTURISTS FOR USE IN TIlE MANUFACTURE OF SOAP The American hog raiser is producing hog lard for edible purposes and the slaughter house endeavors to recover from the hog the maximumn quantity of fat in edible condition. Only unavoidably contaminated fat becomes available to the soap maker, which amounts to only 3 pounds per hog. The same situation is true of the cattle raiser. Practically all of the fat obtained from cattle is recovered in edible condition, and, in packing-house practice, a 1,000-pound steer yields only 61. pounds of inedible tallow. The American cotton farmer takes care of his cottonseed and protects it from weather damages so that the entire oil yield is suitable for edible purposes, and only 7 to 9 per cent of the cottonseed oil goes to the soap kettle in the form of soap stock, which results from the refining operations. No matter to which division of American agriculture we may turn, we find no American farmers deliberately producing any oil and fat for other than edible usage. and such little oil and fat as becomes available for soap making is the unavoidable result of deterioration in slaghtering livestock, or the loss in refining vegetable oils for edible usage. Although we have a large surplus of edible animal, and vegetable oils produced in the United States, we have an acute shortage of low-grade oils and fats for soap making; furthermore, we do not produce in the United States certain vegetable oils which are absolutely necessary to impart certain required qualities in soap, such as lathering, rinsing, cleansing, etc. THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF COCONUT OIL MAKES IT INDISPENSABLE AND NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH ANY OF THE FATS OR OILS. PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES In order to incorporate in the soap the required qualities which the consumer demands in the way of abundant lathering, rapid rinsing, and thorough cleansing properties it is necessary to have present appreciable quantities of the sodium soaps of the lower molecular weight fatty acids. To produce abundant lathering the soap must be easily soluble in water at the ordinary w-ashing temperatures. Naturally, soap is dissolved much more slowly in hard water than in soft water, especially at ordinary water temperatures. The properties which makes a soap easily soluble in water are the same properties which make the suds easily rinsed. No explanation is needed to show that a soap will not have the proper washing qualities if it is not easily soluble in water at the temperatures at which the washing is done. According to the analyses given in Table A under the division pertaining to the field of cooking fats, none of the fats and oils of American agriculture contain fatty acids with molecular weights below that of palmitic acid. In this same table it is seen that coconut oil contains only a very, small percentage of these high molecular weight fatty acids, but instead its composition is made up of the lower molecular weight fatty acids of mlyristic, lauric, capric, and caprylic acids, all of which are below the molecular weight of palmitic acid. It is these low molecular weight fatty acids occurring in coconut oil which, when present in soap, render the soap more soluble in water, hence give it the quick rinsing and thorough cleansing properties so much desired and really demanded by the American consumer. The American public is now demanding a white laundry soap instead of the old types of yellow laundry soaps. This statement is confirmed by all of the principal soap manufacturers. To produce the modern white soap an appreciable percentage of coconut oil must be used in order to get the desired lathering, rinsing, and thorough cleansing qualities. The great majority of the cities of the United States have fairly hard water so that a soap not easily soluble in this water is a poor cleansing agent and soap which does not contain a good percentage of coconut oil will be quite insoluble in ordinary hard water, hence, the demand for the white laundry soaps containing a sufficient percentage of coconut oil to make them perform efficiently under the conditions they are used. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 171 During the seasonal year, October 1928 to September 1929, the total consumption of coconut oil in the United States was 625,848,000 pounds, of which 375,000,000 pounds or 60 per cent was used in the manufacture of soap in conjunction with our domestic refuse fats and oils. This coconut oil did not compete with the products of any American agriculturist. It was used in conjunction with the domestic refuse fats, such as inedible animal fats, garbage grease, marine oil, and soap stocks (residue from the refining of vegetable oils). The soap could not have been made to meet the steadily increasing demands on the part of the consumers for better lathering, rinsing and cleansing qualities without the addition of an appreciable quantity of coconut oil. As aforementioned, in this field of soap-making fats and oils, no American agriculturist is intentionally producing any fats or oils for the inferior purpose of soap making. The only intentional production of oils in the United States for soap making is the relatively small production of marine oils which are less than 5 per cent of the oils and fats used in this field. Marine oils, before they can be used in the manufacture of soap, must be hydrogenated and then are used as substitutes for the inedible refuse animal fats. These marine oils do not even, to the slightest degree, supply the necessary qualities desired in soap which can only be obtained by the use of coconut oil. As a matter of fact, soap formulas, including an appreciable percentage of a hydrogenated marine oil, require a much higher percentage of coconut oil to produce a soap of satisfactory Lathering, rinsing, and cleansing qualities. In other words, a soap containing regular inedible animal fats can be produced to have the desirable lathering, rinsing, and cleansing properties with a smaller percentage of coconut oil than if the higher molecular-weight fatty acids are supplied from hydrogenated marine oils. It is, therefore, evident that an artificial inflation of the cost of coconut oil tends to penalize the producers of marine oils rather than to help themr. Satisfactory soaps in which they are used can only be produced upon combining with them a liberal proportion of coconut oil in excess of that amount necessary in a soap, the higher molecularweight fatty acids of which come from regular inedible animal or domestic fats. Many American fish-oil producers have been enlisted in the ranks of the misled agriculturists under the misapprehension that marine oils were meeting depressing competition from coconut oil. The true facts in the case are that soau at low prices, possessing the necessary lathering, rinsing, and cleansing properties imparted to it by coconut oil, has actually broadened the outlet for marine oils in the soap kettle. American consumers will pay much higher prices for soap before sacrificing the essential qualities imparted to it by coconut oil. Therefore any import duty against coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippines will in no way restrict the importation of coconut oil for soap-making purposes, but will only impose upon American consumers the burden of much higher prices for soap. Thus in this field of soap making oils and fats in the United States there is absolutely no foundation for the claim of American agriculturists that their domestic-produced oils and fats are suffering any competition from coconut oil. As aforementioned, American agriculturists are intentionally producing no oils and fats for soap making and the necessary lathering qualities in soap can not be obtained from any oil or fat produced in the United States. If import duties should be imposed upon coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippines. American agriculturists would bear a very large portion of the burden. The extension of sanitation is most pronounced in rural districts, and along with the extension of water and sanitary systems the consumption of soap goes hand in hand. IV. DRYING OILS-PAINT AND VARNISH AND LINOLEUM We only allude to the division of drying oils in the American field of oils and fats consumption as a matter of establishing the fact that it presents no problem whatever in connection with the importation of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine Islands. Paint, varnish, oilcloth, rubber substitutes, and other allied products require vegetable oils which have the power to absorb oxygen from the air. These oils, known as drying oils, are linseed oil, perilla oil, soybean oil, hempseed oil, and china wood oil. Coconut oil is strictly a nondrying oil and is never used in any product as a substitute for any of the aforementioned drying oils. 172 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS In order to give a clearer picture of the difference between a drying and nondrying oil, we will present the difference in chemical composition of the two oils. A drying oil contains only relatively small percentages of the saturated fatty glycerides (the average linseed oil contains less than l0 per cent of these saturated fatty glycerides) and high percentages of the unsaturated fatty glycerides of oleic, linolic, linolenic, isolinolenic, and other similar unsaturated fatty glycerides. These unsaturated fatty glycerides have the property of absorbing oxygen from the air to form first a gummy and later a hard surface or film which acts as a protective coating on whatever material it may be applied. The chemical composition of coconut oil contains practically no unsaturated fatty glycerides-hence, there is nothing in the oil to absorb oxygen from the air and, chemically, it can not be substituted in any percentage. SECTION I. —GENERAL SUMMARY COCONUT OIL NON COMPErITIVE A careful survey of the interchangeability in usage between coconut oil and oils and fats produced in the United States in the fields of: I. Table fats; II. Cooking fats and oils; III. Soap making oils and fats; IV. Drying oils, proves conclusively that there is not the slightest element of competition in the United States between coconut oil from the Philippines and oils and fats produced in the United States. Any restrictions upon importation of coconut oil and copra from the Philippine Islands can only result in grievous injury and burden to the American consumers of oil and fat products in which coconut oil is an indispensable ingredient, without producing an iota of compensatory benefit to American agriculturists. Furthermore, such restrictions upon the importation of coconut oil (and copra) from the Philippine Islands would only ruin the coconut oil crushing industry which has been built up in the Philippines with the assistance of American capital, and would impose great injury upon the native coconut growers of the Philippines. In other words, the sole sufferers from the ill-advised proposals for the imposition of duties upon the products of the Philippine Islands by granting the islands their independence, or by other means, will be the American consumers in the United States and American capital and coconut growers in the Philippines. COCONUT OIL IS AS INDISPENSABLE IN AMERICAN OIL AND FAT PRODUCTS AND AS NONCOMPETITIVE AS RUBBER Coconut oil or any oil possessing similar characteristics is not produced in the United States. It does not compete with any American produced oil or fat, but on the other hand is an essential ingredient in the manufacture of materials in which other American oils and fats are used in conjunction with coconut oil. Thereby many American oils and fats enjoy a larger outlet and enter into fields of consumption at higher prices through the agency of coconut oil. Coconut oil is as indispensable as rubber. It is as noncompetitive with American products as rubber. The Philippine production of coconut oil (and copra) under the American flag is a national asset and one which benefits every American citizen, whether he be farmer, laborer, merchant or capitalist. STATISTICS TO SHOW IMPORTANCE OF COCONUT OIL TO AMERICAN OIL AND FAT INDUSTRIES For the seasonal year October, 1928, to September, 1929, inclusive, the consumption in the United States of fats and oils, exclusive of butter, for edible and soap making purposes was 4,647,088,000 pounds. The total consumption of coconut oil in the United States for this same period was 625,848,000 oounds, or 13.4 per cent of the total fats and oils consumed. COCONUT OIL (AND COPRA) IS A MAJOR FACTOR IN OUR VALUABLE TRADE WITH THE PHILIPPINES A clear picture of the major part coconut oil plays in our trade with the Philippines may be had from an examination of the following statistics for the calendar year 1928: IN)EPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 173 Pounds VWslue Imports Philippine coconut oil --------------------------------------- - 290,637, 000 $23, 051, 000 Imports Philippine copra ----------------------------------------- 370, 881,000 16,548, 000 -Combined value Philippine coconut oil and copra imports -------------------- - 39, 609, 000 'Combined imports Of Philippine coconut oil and copra expressed as oil (oil equivalent of copra based on average 60 per cent yield) --- —----------------- 513,165,000 ------ IDutiable imports of coconut oil from other countries -------------------------- 44,613 tCopra imports from other countries --------- ---------- - - 130,071,000 6,230,000 'Copra imports from other countries expressed as oil ------------- - 78,043,000 -----------.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[iii~0 AMERICAN EXPORTS TO THE PHILIPPINES To sh-ow the relationship between American exports and imports in the commerce with the Philippines and to show the major place which agricultural products occupy in our exports Table B is presented on page 18, showing the principal commodities in trade between the United States and the Philippine Islands. In Table B, which covers only the imports and exports of the principal commodities, the exports of cotton cloth, wheat, condensed milk, and cigarettes.amount to approximately $22,000,000. In addition thereto other agricultural iproducts were exported from the United States, consisting of other cotton zproducts amounting to $3,400,000, other tobacco products amounting to $1,300,Q000, fruits and nuts amounting to $1,235,000, meat products amounting to.$719,000, vegetables amounting to $677,000, woolen articles amounting to $453,000, and honey amounting to $5,000, all of which bring the total value of American agricultural products exported to the Philippines in 1928 to approximately $29,000,000. Against the American agricultural products, amounting to $29,000,000, exported to the Philippines during 1928 the United States imported approximately.$44,000,000 worth of coconut products-coconut oil and copra. These imports of coconut products from the Philippines were indispensable to American consumers, and not 1 pound of these products is grown in the United States.,On the other hand, the Philippines imported from the United States $29,000,000 worth of agricultural products, a large portion of which could have been purchased from other countries. The erection of economic barriers against imports from the Philippines can not curtail the importation of coconut productscopra and coconut oil-into the United States, but on the other hand, such economic barriers would greatly curtail our exports to the Philippine Islands. Principal comnmodities in trade of the United States writh Philippine Islands [Values in thousands of dollars] Quantity Value tCommodity 1927 1928 1927 1928 1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I EXPORTS,Canned salmon_ ---------—. ----. ---_ --- —. —.-1,000 pounds__ 4,742 258 500 33 Milk, condensed and evaporated ----— do- -- 20, 290 1 23, 290 2, 608 2,997 Wheat flour ----------------------— _ --- —-- 1,000 barrels__ 635 766 3,878 4,537 Auto tires (casings) _ --- number 112,116 106,128 1,394 1,205 *Cigarettes -_ --- —----— m — ____. ___. — _-_illion_ 532 809 1,129 1,772,Cotton cloth -----------------. ----—.. — 1,000 square yards_ 87,384 93, 187 11, 155 12,019 Hosiery (cotton, silk, and rayon) ------— __ 1,000 dozen pairs_ 221 208 656 671 -Illuminating oil -------— _ --- —--— _-__ -----— 1,000 barrels_ 197 360 1,313 2,287 ILubricating oil ---------------— _ ----------— _______ do — 48 - 75 705 987 Gasoline and naphtha -----------------— ___ --- —----— do ---- 293 377 2,287 3,000,Gas and fuel oiL... --- —------------------------------ do 686 592 743 590 Electrical machinery --------------------------------- ---- 1,526 1,411 Industrial machinery _ --- —-------------------— _ --- —-— _ -- ---------- ----— 6_3, 962 6,158 Iron and steel, and manufactures of --- —----------------------- ---------- ------- 6,997 8, 389 Automobiles, passenger_ --- —---— __ --- —-- number-_ 3, 422 3, 674 2, 660 2, 773 Motor trucks and busses. --- —---------—._ --- ——. ---do -- 1,499 2,153 909 1,371 Automobile parts for replacement ------- ----- - 577 670 Books and pamphlets ----------------------- — 1, 244 984 Exports, all commmodities- _ --------------------------------- _.-|I 69, 552 79, 806 174 INDEPENTDENCE FOP, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 1irincipal c(r,2 omotities il t'flittr of(J tJic UT7IitCfd St(ttfte.N.lif/i: '1ilip))i] ic 1lt1.. — C('ontinued [Values in thousands of dollars] Quantity Vaalue Commodity --- 1927 1928 1927 192' IMPORTS (oconut meat, prepared --- —------------------ - 1.000 pounds _ 33, 994 464. 96 3,041 4 00,5 o'.ora, not prepared -----------------------— do — 341,389 370 81 15 113 1. 548 (o(conut il --- —----------------—....-__ ----_- do ---- 293,370 4290.67 22900 23061 Slugar, cane ----------- -------------------— _ —_ --- —- -do - - 1,061. 030 1. 150,031 47,9 4. 03 Cigars and cheroots ------------ ---------— do 2,6 45 2, 54 4i, i42 I 4190 Cotton wearing apparel ---- --- __ --- - ---- --- 1,000 tons.. - -:3, 521 3, 639 M anla a. --- —-----------. ---. --- —---------------------..._ 51.46 1i3, 07,,5 9, 367 Hats, bonnets, hoods of straws, etc ---—..- -------—. _1.000__ 365 6;3 ' 8 1,855 Sawed cabinet woods -----------------------— 1,000 board feet__ 32, 931 33, SS1 I 1, 34 1,538 Imports -----------------------------------— all commodities- 115,980 1 i.. 478 Itegardless of Philippine independence or the impositioni of duties upon products fron tlhe Philippines, the United States will be compelled to make these imnportations of coconut products either from the Philippines or from other producinog countries. To import these coconut products from the Philippines instead (of from the colonial possessions of the European counltries. so long as we erect no trade barriers against the Philippines, insures our retaining the reciprocal export business shown in Table B. It is important to note froni the information contained in Table IB that tlhe value of American exlp"ts to the Philippines increased 16 per clnt in 192s a\: 1 the exports to the islands in 1927; whereas the value of thle imports from 1te Philippines into t!he United States were no greater in 1925S thln in 1927. BIBLIOCIRAPHY OF TABLE A The data shown in Table A was secured from the following sources: Chemical Technology and Analyses of Oils, Fats and Waxes. Lewkowitsch. Edible Oils and Fats. G. D. Elsdon. Journal American Chemical Society, No. 42-1797. G. S. Jamileson. Pamphlets, published by United States Bureau of Chemistry, Washingt in. D. C. SECTION II. THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT OIL AND COP(IA INDUSTTRY CONSI)DEIED FROML THE POINT OF VIEWV OF THE PHI-LIPPINE IS.LANDS The modern development of tlie coconut-growing industry in tlie Philippine Islands dates back to the early part of the World War, when, under the impetus of the war-time demand for oils and fats, the planting of coconut groves was greatly expanded. Coincident with the planting and maturing of a greatly increased acreage in coconut trees there has developed in the United States and foreign countries a demand for white laundry soaps made of coconut oil, and the development of the confectionery industry in tlhe United States requires large quantities of hard coconut butter and coconut oil to solidify grease coatings and fillings. In line with the growing demand for greater supplies of coconut oil in the United States and in line with the development of tlhe ('ocolut-g'rrowin-r industry in the Philippines. American capital lhas been invested in large amounts in the building and op)eration of coconlut-oil mills in the Philippine'. THE MOST ECONOMICAL ADVANTAGES RESuLT ll i- ( r N'i:IxN (CilS HING (OPERATI)N S IN THE ISLANI)S The function of the oil-crushing industry in thle Philipp)iles is to crush the native copra-to separate the oil from the fibrous portion of the copra. It is most economic and advantageous to conduct this operation in thle Philippines, as the United States with its large annual crops of cotton and flaxseed produces a large exportable surplus of cottonseed cake and flaxseed cake which must be exported to northern Europe. Inasmuch as the Unitedl States is over INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 175 stocked with its domestic production of oil cakes, it is more economical to crush the copra in the Philippines and export the resulting oil cake directly to northern European countries.and to send, the'.coconut: oil, without the cake, directly to the United States where it is an indispensable ingredient in many oil and fat products. Under the present tariff act of 1922. coconut oil from foreign countries other than the Philippine Islands is dutiable at 2 cents per pound, while copra enters the United States duty free from all countries. Under these tariff rates on coconut oil the United States is induced to secure its supplies of oil from the Philippines. At the same time the coconut growers and the American oil crushers in the Philippines are prohibited from charging the American consumers more than the international value of coconut oil, because copra can enter the United States free of duty from any country. In fact, much other copra does enter the United States free of duty and is crushed by mills located principally on the Pacific coast, at Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. Thus, while the United States is encouraged to secure a major portion of its coconut-oil supply from the Philippine Islands, coconut growers and American crushers in the Philippines are enjoying no tariff-protection privileges enabling them to charge American consumers more than the world price for coconut oil. By this highly advantageous arrangement American consumers have access to a large and valuable supply of coconut oil without bringing into the United States large quantities of copra cake, which would be surplus to our existing oversupply of oil cakes. European countries having a deficient production of grains and feedstuffs invite the importation of oil cakes from all parts of the world, whereas the United States is overstocked with its own production of oil cakes. Thus the Philippines constitute a reliable and large source of indispensable supply under the American flag for coconut oil, and to sever this highly valuable economic arrangement would show very unsound judgment. To divorce the United States from the Philippine Islands' supply of copra' and coconut oil, which is the largest of any of the copra-producing countries of the world, would only penalize American consumers without producing the slightest benefit to those who are so ill-advised in promoting the proposal to erect tariff barriers against the Philippines either by tariff legislation or by liberating the Philippine Islands from the United States. Not only is the large supply of Philippine copra and coconut oil a blessing to all American citizens, but the importation of the large quantities of copra and coconut oil from the Philippines establishes a medium for correspondingly large reciprocal exports to the Philippines of American merchandise, of which American cotton and other American farm products are large portions. PRODUCTION OF COPRA IN THE PHILIPPINES The production of copra in the Philippines for the calendar year 1928 was approximately 525,000 tons, representing a growth from approximately 375,000 tons produced in 1921. This increase in production between 1921 and 1928 is due to the fact that large numbers of coconut palms were planted in the islands during 1917, 1918, and 1919 which did not come to full bearing until 1927. Since the period of war-inflated prices for oils and fats, there have been no price factors in the world oil and fat markets to induce the planting of more coconut groves in the Philippines. Thus, the period of peak production in the islands has been reached, and the planting of additional groves will not occur unless at some future date a world shortage of oils and fats of considerable duration should occur. In this case additional copra production from such further plantings could not result until seven years after the time such additional groves were planted. As long as peace continues between the large nations of the world, the production of all oleaginous materials, such as soybeans, peanuts, sunflower seed, olives, cottonseed, etc., promises to keep up with the world consumption, so that no special demand is in sight that would warrant any intense effort to increase the production of copra in the Philippines or in any other copra-producing country. COPBA CRUSHED IN THE PHILIPPINES AND COPRA EXPORTED FROM THE PHILIPPINES During the calendar year 1928 approximately 242,000 tons of copra were crushed by the oil mills in the Philippines. During the same calendar year 235,000 tong of copra were exported from the Philippines. Of these exports of 176 INDEPENDENCE FOP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS copra, 183,000 tons of copra were exported to the United States and 52,000 toull to European countries; thereby 78 per cent of the copra exported from the Philippines was shipped to tlTe United St:ites and 22 per cent was shipped <* other countries, principally Europe. STATUS OF PHILIPPINE COPRA IN WORLD TRADE Philippine copra is an international commodity, and the Philippine production is marketable for shipment to any country having coconut-oil mills for crushing the copra into oil and cake. Thus American crushers whose mills are located in the Philippine Islands. American crushers with mills located in the United States, and crushers in European countries-principally England, Holland, Germany, France, Spain, and Denmark-compete for the purchase of copra produced in the Philippines. The copra crushers of European countries enjoy a considerable advantage in the purchase of copra, for in purchasing this commodity in the country of origin they are equally interested in securing the cake as well as the coconut oil contained in the copra. On the other hand, American crushers located in the Philippines must export their cake to European countries and a considerable portion of the copra cake produced by mills in the United States must be reexported to Europe. If an import duty were imposed on copra and coconut oil from the Philippines, American cruslers located in the Philippines would be deprived of free entry to the American market, and the only advantage whichi they enjoy over these European crushers would be wiped out and they would still suffer the contra (lis(ldvantag~e of being obliged to ship their oil separately to one market-the United States —and their copra cake to another market — Europe. It is because of the peculiar condition under which the United States has a surplus domestic production of oil cake from oilseeds of American agriculture and no domestic production of copra for producing coconut oil that makes thle crushing of copra in the Philippines possible. European countries which require both coconut oil and copra cake find it more advantageous to import these oilseeds a lnd to crush them in their own mills rather than to import the oils and cakes separately. For this reason the crushing of oilseeds in countries where the oilseeds are grown is very limited. The more complicated and expensive method of separately transporting oils and oil cake from countries of o(rigin as against the simpler method of transporting tlie oilseed is the reason for tihe very limited expansion of the crushing industry in countries of origin. Were it not for the fact that the United States can not consume the quantity of copra cake which is produced from tlhe Philippine copra crop, the crushing of copra in the Philippines would not be susttained as against the crushing of tris crop in the United States. It is quite clear that any economic barrier against the free importation of coconut oii from thle Philippines to the United States would result in the destruct;-ion of the copra-cruslhing industry in the Philippines and the United States would then procure its essential supply of coconut oil from European crushers and domestic crushers. Under pres.ent conditions our domestic crushers located in the United States have an equal opportunity to purchase Plhilippine copra in competition with American crushers whose, wills are located in the Philippines. The entire business of supplying coconut oil to the United States is thus reserved exclusively to coconut-oil mills operating in the Philippines and in the United States, with both divisions of the American industry operating on a basis of economic equality. PRODUCTION OF COCONUT OIL IN THE PhILIPPINES From the aforementioned 242.000 tons of copra crushed by the oil mills ilt the Philippines during the calendar year 1928, approximately 145,000 tons of coconut oil were produced. Based upon the average moisture content of the copra when received at the mills in the Philippines. the yield of coconut oil is approximately 60 per cent. COPRA AND COCONUT OIL EXPORTS FROM THE PHILIPPINES The exports of coconut oil from the Philippines during the calendar year 1928 were 142,000 tons, valued at $23,250,000. Of these exports 141.000 tons were to the United States and 1,000 tons were to other countries, principally INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 177 China. Based upon an average oil yield of 60 per cent, the cocon:t oil exported from the Philippine Islands to the United States during the calendar year 1928 represented 56 per cent of the combined exports of coconut oil and copra, and the exports of copra represented 44 per cent. The statistics used in the foregoing were obtained from the following sources: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; United States Bureau of Internal Revenue; Commerce Year Book, Volume 1, 1929; Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce; Bureau of Customs, Philippine Islands. SECTION III. AMERICAN CAPITAL INVESTED IN THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT OIL AND COPRA CRUSHING INDUSTRY Mr. Fiedel R. Reyes, director of commerce and industries of the Philippine government, in a recent estimate, shows the total capital invested in coconut oil factories in the Philippines to be $6,185,000, of which the major portion is American capital. In addition to this capital invested in coconut oil crushing factories there is approximately $5,000,000 invested in industries which are necessary adjuncts to the coconut-oil mills. This is exclusively American capital and includes capital invested in barges, oil-handling-facilities and steamships. Therefore, a total of approximately $11,000,000 is invested in coconutoil mills and facilities devoted exclusively to the Philippine coconut-oil business. This large investment will be practically a total loss if economic barriers are erected against the free importation of coconut oil (and copra) into the United States from the Philippines. As aforementioned, the operation of these coconut-oil mills in Manila is only possible because the United States requires large supplies of coconut oil, but does not require the importation of much copra cake, so that the coconut-oil factories in the Philippines, by separating (crushing) the copra into oil and cake in the Philippines, where the copra is grown, are able to ship their copra cake to Europe and their coconut oil to the United States. Should the United States levy a duty on coconut oil from the Philippines, the consumers of coconut oil in the United States would purchase much of their coconut oil from coconut-oil mills located in Java and in Europe. At the same time European consumers would purchase no coconut oil from the Philippine Islands, as European consumers would prefer to purchase Philippine copra and bring the same to Europe, where they have need for both the coconut oil and the copra cake. In other words, the coconut oil mills in the Philippines, owned by American capital, would have no opportunity to sell their coconut oil in Europe, whereas coconut oil mills located in European countries and in the colonial possessions of European countries where copra is grown would have an equal opportunity to sell coconut oil in the American market. An import duty into the United States on coconut oil from the Philippines would destroy the coconut-oil crushing industry in the Philippines and would result in the Philippines' trade being reduced exclusively to the exportation of copra to the United States and European countries. The coconut-oil crushing industry in the Philippines has been built up exclusively upon the free entry of Philippine coconut oil into the United States Any duty imposed upon the importation of Philippine coconut oil into the United States will positively result in the destruction of this industry in the Philippines and practically the total loss of the capital invested in this industry by American firms. DESTRUCTION OF COCOtNUT-OIL CRUSHING INDUSTRY IN T'IIH PHILIPPINE'S A BLOW TO THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE During the calendar year 1928, 142,000 tons of coconut oil were exported from the Philippines, of which 141,000 tons were exported to the United States. A large proportion of this tonnage was shipped from Cebu and Manila to Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coast ports in American bottoms, and during last year, 1929, one of the leading American firms in the coconut-oil crushing industry at Manila acquired the ownership of five American tank steamers having a total tonnage of 37,500, expressed as deadweight tons, valued at $3,000,000, for the exclusive purpose of transporting the production of coconut oil from their factories at Manila to the United States. The marine transportation of coconut oil is accomplished by the shipment of the oil in bulk in tanks of 300 to 1,500 tons capacity in cargo steamers or in 178 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN)S tank steamers devoted exclusively to the transportation of liquids. Thus ocean tonnage of this character is also suitable for the transportation from the United States of such liquid commodities as petroleum, gasoline, etc., of which large quantities are exported from the United States to the Orient. The movement of coconut oil from the Philippines to the United States also makes it possible for American cargo steamers to carry coconut oil on the return voyage to the United States in the tanks in which their supply of fuel oil for their outbound voyage has been carried and consumed in propelling the vessel. The movement of 141,000 tons of coconut oil from the Philippines to the United States affords a very substantial amount of tonnage to American shippers and any duty on the importation of Philippine coconut oil into the United States would result in the diversion of this tonnage from coconut oil to copra and in turn the relative tonnage in copra would be largely diverted to European countries and thereby result in a very substantial net loss of tonnage to American shippers. GENERAL SUMMARY A careful investigation into every phase of the present relationship between the United States and the Philippine Islands in connection with oils and fats proves conclusively that there is no factor of avoidable competition between Philippine coconut oil and copra and oils and fats produced by American agriculturists. There is not a single feature in connlection with the present freedom of trade between the United States and the Philippines in coconut oil and copra that is to the discadvantage of the United States. its agricultural producers. or its consuners. On the other hand, intelligent an(l searching investigation proves conclusively that the United States has an asset of inestimalble value in;having under the American flag the large suppI)ly of Philippine copr;a and coconut oil. which is indispensable in the manufacture of products which are basic necessities required by American consumers. It is a matter of common knowledge that American industries who require rubber as a necessary raw material in thle production of many articles have continuously labored ull(er the hardship and feeling of insecurity because of all the rubber required by the United States being produced in the colonial possessions of European countries. It is a matter of record that agents of the American Government have for years taken an active part in various efforts to free American consumers of rubber from admonitions of foreign producers of rubber and the extortionate prices which American consumers have frequently been obliged to pay for this commodity because of our country having no substantial production within our own territorial limits. In the production of many oil and fat products ill the category of basic necessities in the United States coconut oil is fully as indisplensable an ingredient as rubber is indispensable in the production of many other articles. Philippine coconut oil is no more competitive to American producers than is foreign rubber. The position of foreign rubber and Philippine coconut oil in relation to American commerce iand industries is practically identical. Our supply of Philippine coconut oil in times of national emergencies woull be indispensable as a source of glycerin for the manufacture of explosive s. When oils are split into fatty acids and glycerin, the fatty a( cids are of (n edible value and consequently glycerin must be obtained from soapmlaki.olg varieties of oils and fats in order that the necessary supply of edible oils land fats shall not be impaired. During an international emergency American control of a large supply of coconut oil, such as the Philippine production. would oe a vital factor in securing a necessary supply of glycerin indc in maintaining a necessary supply of oils and fats for edible purposes. The duty free importation of coconut oil and copra from the Philippines furnishes the American consumers with this indispensable vegetable oil at its international value and any import duty imposed on Philippine coconut oil would only be an unnecessary burden to all American consumers and would not alct as a measure that would elevate the price of domestic produced oils and fats. The duty free importation of coconut oil and copra from the Philippines is most desirable as an important factor in maitainining the high standard of sanitation now enjoyed by the United States. Any tariff inflation in the cost of Philippine coconut oil will result in a substantial increase in the cost of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 179 laundry and toilet soaps and it is a well established factor that the liberal use of soap in the United States has been established by maintaining the cost of soap at low levels. Respectfully submitted in behalf of the coconut-oil mills of the Philippines. SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS (PHILIPPINES) (INC.), Per HOWARD KELLOGG, President. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Charles D. Orth, president of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, 67 Wall Street, New York. STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. ORTH, PRESIDENT PHILIPPINEAMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NEW YORK Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Orth, I suppose you have been in the Philippines a considerable time? Mr. ORTH. Yes, sir. Senator TYDINGS. Your rank seems to indicate that. How long have you been there? Mr. ORTH. I have been in the Philippines only for short journeys. I have not lived there. Members of my firm have. Senator TYDINGS. Over what period of time? Mr. ORTH. Three or four months at a time. Senator TYDINGS. How far back? The CHAIRMAN. When did you first go to the Philippines Mr. ORTH. In 1925. But I might say to the committee, perhaps, that my connection with the Philippine Islands began in the late eighties, and I have been cognizant of the development of the islands and their industries, and so forth, since that time. The CHAIRMAN. What business are you in, Mr. Orth? Mr. ORTH. I appear here as president of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce. My private business is as a member of the firm of Hanson & Orth. Senator BROUSSARD. Will you please state whether this association is composed entirely of American investors in the Philippines? Mr. ORTH. Not entirely, Senator. It is composed chiefly of that class. Senator BROUSSARD. How many Filipinos? Mr. ORTH. No Filipinos. Senator BROISSARD. The membership is exclusively American? Mr. ORTH. Exclusively American. Senator BROUSSARD. Residing in the United States? Mr. ORTH. Yes; chiefly. Senator BROUSSARD. Your office is in New York? Mr. ORTH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How many members have you? Mr. ORTH. Eighty, I think. The CHAIRMAN. That is 80 firms, is it? Mr. ORTH. No; 80 firms and individuals. There are some members of the Chamber who are not in business, but who simply have an interest in Philippine affairs. Senator TYDINGS. Then, as I understand it, the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce is a group of some 80 or 100 American 92109-30-PT2 —5 180 INDEPENDENCE FOlR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS business men, chiefly, who have their business in the United States but have trade relations with the Philippine Islands. Mr. ORTH. Who have their business in the Philippine Islands and in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Just one more question: Your own business is in what line? Mr. ORTHI. We are hemp importers. The CHAIRMAN. The Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce in New York City is composed chiefly of New York City merchants, is it? Mr. ORTH. No. It is composed-I suppose the largest single element is New York City merchants. The CHAIRMAN. Naturally. Mr. ORTH. But there are a large number of firms in the Philippines and firms in other parts of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. When you say there are a large number of firms in the Philippines, do you mean that a considerable portion of your membership have their principal place of business in the Philippines? Mr. ORTH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I did not get that in your first statement. Mr. ORTH. American concerns with their principal place of business in the Philippines. Senator TYDINGS. Before we leave the subject, would it be proper, and would you mind placing in the record the names of those who are members of this association, and their addresses, so that we might locate them in case they come up at any other point in the testimony? Mr. ORTH. I will be very glad to do so. (The membership list referred to was subsequently furnished by Mr. Orth, as follows:) MEMBERS PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Anderson & Co., Wm. H., 25 Broadway, New York City. Armour Fertilizer Works, 305 Broadway, New York City. Booth Co., F. E.. 110 Market Street, San Francisco. Baker Co., Franklin, Hoboken, N. J. Barber Steamship Lines, 17 Battery Place, New York City. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 85 Liberty Street, New York City. Bond, Charles A., 15 William Street, New York City. Comins, J. F., 40 Worth Street. New York City. Construction Supplies Co. (L. S. Kahn), 93 Water Street, New York City. Coburn, Ralph G., 250 Park Avenue, New York City. Dayton, Price & Co. (Ltd.), 420 Hudson Street, New York City. Davies & Co., Theo. H. (Wm. B. Craig), 165 Broadway, New York City. Ehrman, Alfred, room 602, 2 Pine Street, San Francisco. Elser, E. E., Manila, P. I. Empire Plow Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Fisher Flouring Mills Co., Seattle, Wash. Gregg Co. (Ltd.), Hackensack, N. J. Gilbert, Newton W., 51 Madison Avenue, New York City. Hanson & Orth, 67 Wall Street, New York City. Hamilton, Carl W., 50 Broad Street, New York City. Havemeyer, Horace, 90 Wall Street, New York City. Hopson, Howard C., 61 Broadway, New York City. Harbison, William Albert, Graybar Building, New York City. Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co., 58 Worth Street, New York City. Heinz Co., H. J. (W. J. Shortreed), Pittsburgh, Pa. Insular Lumber Co., 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia. INDEPENDENCE FORE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 181 International General Electric Co., 120 Broadway, New York City. International Banking Corporation, 55 Wall Street, New York City. Jayne & Son, Dr. D., Delaware Avenue at Pine Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Koppel Industrial Car & Equipment Co., Koppel, Pa. Levy, Philip, care of Barth & Guttman, 341 Broadway, New York City. Lumb, Calvin, care of California Packing Corporation, 260 West Broadway, New York City. Lambert Pharmacal Co., 2101 Locust Street, St. Louis, Mo. Manila Railroad Co., Manila, P. I. MacLeod & Co. (Inc.), 11 Broadway, New York City. Manila Electric Co., 33 Liberty Street, New York City. Mitsui & Co. (sundry department), 65 Broadway, New York City. Mason, George G., 2 Rector Street, New York City. Morgan, Enoch, Sons Co., 439 West Street, New York City. McGilvray, C., care of Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co., 58-0 Worth Street, New York City. Manila Trading & Supply Co., 11 Broadway, New York City. Norton, Lilly & Co., 26 Beaver Street, New York City. National Lead Co. of California, 485 California Street, San Francisco. Neuss, Hesslein & Co. (Inc.), 75 Worth Street, New York City. Ossorio, M. J., care of Theo. H. Davies & Co. (Ltd.), 165 Broadway, New York City. Pritchard, R. L., 90 Wall Street, New York City. Pacific Commercial Co., 80 Wall Street, New York City. Peabody, Henry W. & Co., 17 State Street, New York City. Philippine National Bank, 37 Broadway, New York City. Planck & Sons, E. D. ver, 126 State Street, Boston, Mass. Powis-Brown Co. (Inc.), 40 East Thirty-fourth Street, New York City. Philippine Railway Co., 33 Liberty Street, New York City. Philippine Refining Corporation, 50 Broad Street, New York City. Procter & Gamble Trading Co., 17 Battery Place, New York City. Philippine Telephone & Telegraph Co., 116 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco. Radio Corporation of America, 233 Broadway, New York City. Ross & Rowe (Inc.), 25 Beaver Street, New York City. Sprout, Waldron & Co., Muncy, Pa. Standard Oil Co. of New York (H. E. Cole), 26 Broadway, New York City. Switzer, John M., 48 West Fifty-ninth Street, New York City. Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), 98 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, N. Y. Texas Co., The, 17 Battery Place, New York City. U. S. Steel Products Co., 30 Church Street, New York City. Vacuum Oil Co., 61 Broadway, New York City. Willis, H. Parker, 32 Broadway, New York City. Waterbury Co., 63 Park Row, New York City. Watson Machine Co., Paterson, N. J. Welch, Fairchild & Co. (Inc.), 135 Front Street, New York City. Weld's Sons, Aaron D., Boston, Mass. White, J. G. Management Corporation, 33 Liberty Street, New York City. White, J. G. Engineering Corporation, 43 Exchange Place, New York City Wheeling Steel Co., Wheeling, W. Va. Washington Iron Works, Seattle, Wash. Walker, W. B., room 1411, 26 Broadway, New York. Westinghouse Electric International Co., 120 Broadway, New York City. Yangco, Teodoro R., Manila, P. I. Zuellig, F. E., Manila, P. I. Senator HAwES. Mr. Orth, I do not want to interrupt your testimony later. I would like to ask you what steps this association has taken to oppose Philippine independence. We are receiving some letters here which, it seems to me, must be stimulated from some source, because they manifest a distinct misunderstanding of the situation. Mr. ORTH. A misunderstanding of the situation? Senator HAWES. Yes, sir; the situation before Congress. Have you communicated with the manufacturers of the country or has your organization? 182 INDEPENDENCE FOB THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AMr. ORT-I. We have. Senator H-AW-ES. Asking them to oppose Philippine independence? AIMr. ORPTI. Asking them to oppose Philippine independence at thll time. Senator HIAWES. Then the opposition to Philippine independence is beingr largIrely directed by the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce. is it not? Mr. ()nTIi. I can not answer that question in that way, Senator. The opposition of the members of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commierce is beingt more or less directed by the chamber; yes. Senator HAWES. Approximately how many letters have you sent out requesting people to communicate with Congress in opposition to indepedednce? You understand I am not criticizing, Mr. Orth. I just want to know where it is coming from. Mr. ()ORI. I will be very glad, Senator, to give you the ilformation. AMiglht I sugrest, Mr. Chairman. and Senator, that perhaps this statement whiclh I;-ould like lo read may give you a lot of the iniorination wh-ichl, you want, and I can ask you to supplement it by asking any specific questions you want to ask. Senator HAWEs. Just as you choose. Mr. ORTH. I would like to preface my statement to the committee by reference to remarks made by one of its members at the session of this committee held on January 20. Referring to the Philippine export organization (presumably the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce was meant), it was said: I would certainly like to have them come so that I may find out how they ire sulpp:rted, how they are financed. 1n(d whether they are responsible for these telegrams v:e are beginning to receive. It would temporarily relieve the lobblying committee of a portion of its duties. In the report of the lobbying committee reference was made to the fact that Philippine interests may have spent moneys which had not been investigated by the committee. I want to say that the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce made no appearance at any time to anybody in Washington, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the Timberlake resolution. Certain members of the chamber came here and testified on their own behalf, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we did nothing at any time which could be fairly or properly classed as lobbying. For instance, I saw nobody in connection with the matter, made no personal requests of anybody, and we confined our activities entirely to the method which I am going to explain here. Senator HAWES. Before you get away from that, that was my statement in the record. I believe. Mr. Orth, it is not only proper for any citizen to come to Washington to express his point of view. but, so far as I am concerned, he can walk into my door at any time and talk to me. However, lobbying is not alone, in my opinion, personal lobbying or personal contact. Lobbying can be done just as well by letters and by communications. It was to that that I had reference, and it was about that that I wanted to ask you some questions. If you prefer that I do it later, I shall do it at the conclusion of your testimony. Mr. ORTH. May I be permitted to say that on account of the public interest in lobbying I was at some pains to ascertain what it was supposed to be. I find that no less an authority than James INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 183 Bryce indicates that it is making solicitations by personal agency, and in doing that he cites the language of the American courts in decisions which they arrived at to that same effect. The CHAIRMAAN. You do not realize, Mr. Orth, that in the present state of the political atmosphere in Washington, lobbying consists in giving a statement to the New York papers in opposition to any party on the floor. Mr. ORTH. No, I did not realize that, and I thought that was provided for in the Constitution. Senator HAWEs. The most obnoxious lobby that we suffer, Mr. Orth, is advice from constituents on all sorts of subjects, stimulated by propaganda organizations. The CHAIRMAN. Particularly on legal questions. Senator HAWES. I refer to communications roused from one source. To my mind that is just as offensive, if it is offensive at all, as personal conversation. I am trying to find out-and I know you will be perfectly frank about it, because there is no reason why you should not be; there is nothing illegal about it, and I do not consider that it is even improper Mr. ORTH. Perhaps, Senator, I had better go along with my statement, because it might help considerably in elucidation. With the permission of the committee, I would like to supply the information which Senator Hawes indicated he would like to have. The Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce is a membership body, comprised not merely of exporters, but also of importers and of individuals having interests in Philippine trade and affairs. A great majority of the members, however, are either exporters or importers. Many of them have establishments in the Philippines, representing important investments. During the years 1924-1928, inclusive, no moneys were received by the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce from any sources whatsoever except from membership dues. These averaged about $1,200 per annum. During these five years, the ordinary disbursements of the organization for secretarial services, postage, stationery, and so forth, averaged about $700 per year. The only expenditure beyond such routine expenses made during these five years was $488 in the year 1924 for 1,500 booklets entitled " Facts about the Philippines." In the year 1929 the receipts from membership dues were $1,580 and the ordinary disbursements $1,965. In the summer of 1929, however, the organization solicited from its members special donations for the purpose of presenting the facts in connection with its attitude regarding the Timberlake resolution and other tariff matters. Of the $4,000 so received, the sum of $3,437 was expended for the printing and distribution of 25,000 copies of a pamphlet entitled "A Square Deal for the Philippines," and for the expense of circular letters to Members of Congress and newspapers accompanying same. In the month of December, 1929, when the question of Philippine independence came up for consideration before Congress, the organization solicited donations from American firms and individuals in the Philippines and received from them in that month the sum of $10,000, none of which was expended in 1929. 184 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS In January, 1930, further subscriptions to a total of $7,500 were received. Out of this Special Contribution Fund, total $17,500, the total disbursements to January 29th have been $1,983, which were expended for the following purposes: Printing 25,000 copies of a pamphlet The Philippine Question, $305; mailing same. $585.30; compensation to special investigators to report on the actual facts regarding the competition of coconut oil with American dairy products. $578; letters to business firmls. members of Congress, newspapers, and so forth. $412.83: sublcription to newspaper clipping bureau, $30. and clerical work, $72. The activities of the Philippine-American Chamber of Conmlerce have been confined to presenting its point of view and the facts regarding trade relations with the Philippine Islands. These presentations have not been made by "personal agency," but by iall and telegram to members of Congress, officials of the executive ' gvernment, business firms, and the press of the country. The chamber, upon presenting its views to business firms, has requested that if they concurred, they should communicate their views to their Representatives in Congress. Copies of the responses to these business firms by Senators and Members of the House of Representatives seem to indicate quite clearly that those Members of Congress saw no suggestion of impropriety in receiving letters from their constituents, even though in some cases those letters stated that they had been sent at the suggestion of the central body; namely, the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce. The chamber asserts that all it has done has been correct and proper from both a legal and moral standpoint. It has nothing to hide and it has no apologies to make and, being in this position, is glad to reveal all its affairs to the committee. I have been informed that comment has been made before this committee to the effect that the members of the body which I represent are not entitled to be heard on the ground that their interests are selfish. Assuming for the purpose of the argument that our interests are selfish, I ask in what respect do they differ from the interests of the representatives of other organizations which have appeared before your colmmittee without the same criticism being suggested. Senator HAWES. Let me interrupt you right there. Very forcible suggestions were made here to the effect that the position of the Farm Bureau Federation and other farm organizations, and the position of union labor, were selfish. Those suggestions were made by Senator Johnson, and I think by myself. So there are two points of view. One is the human nature point of view, or the selfish point of view, if you want to take it that way-and you are no more subjected to criticism than the other side. The other is the point of view of the American obligation. I thought I would let you know about that, Mr. Orth. Mr. ORTH. Thank you. Senator. I also ask if the right of self-preservation is denied by any American law or code of morals to any American citizen or body of citizens? I believe that the answer to these questions is that we have every legal and moral right to appear here and to be heard with INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 185 the same amount of sympathy, of justice, and of judicial attitude on the part of the committee as any other men or group of men in the country. Whether we are conceded this right or not, I wish to say that there is no body of men in the. United States which has a more intimate or better grounded knowledge of the affairs of, and the facts connected with, the Philippines than we have. During the 31 years that we have held the Philippines no congressional committee has ever been appointed to visit the islands for the purpose of observing at first hand and for an adequate period the actual facts and conditions attending Philippine independence. Whether we are regarded as a selfish body or not, I am sincerely anxious to be of what service I can to put this committee in possession of such facts as are known to me, and to present some suggestions of conclusions derived from these facts. I desire to do this in a spirit of cooperation and service and not in a spirit of disagreement or dissension. If my facts do not possess sufficient inherent probability to recommend themselves to the committee they can, of course, be discarded. Our general views on the subject of Philippine independence were contained in the pamphlet "The Philippine Question," with which I believe the members of this committee are now familiar. This pamphlet constitutes my main brief, and I desire now to refer in a supplementary manner to certain paragraphs where I believe that further elucidation may be of help to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. You are now referring to the pamphlet which was printed in the record of the hearing? Mr. ORTH. Yes; I believe it was printed in the record. This is the pamphlet to which I refer. The CHAIRMAN. It is found on page 105, part 1, of the hearings. Mr. ORTH. The fact that the Department of Commerce officially gives the Philippine Islands fifteenth rank in a list of 68 countries buying our merchandise, and a rank of No. 11 in a list of 72 countries from whom we buy things is, I submit, sufficient indication of the fundamental importance to the United States of existing trade with the Philippine Islands. The Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce is furthering a movement to induce Philippine merchants to increase the volume of their imports from the United States to a figure which will be more or less equivalent to the value of the goods which they ship to us. In connection with sugar, I beg with all the force and solemnity which are possible that the committee will give careful consideration to my statements, first, to the effect that Philippine sugar does not actually displace any American sugar, and will not and can not until the American production is more nearly equal to the American consumption; and secondly, to the effect that the real and almost sole trouble with sugar to-day is world overproduction. These statements are conclusions conscientiously arrived at after the most careful analysis of the situation by men knowing the article and everything connected with it and qualified by commercial experience to give an opinion. There is one other point about sugar to which I think it is important to refer, namely, the possibility of increase in the Philippine 186 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS production. I regret to say that in my opinion when General Wood stated that the Philippine production could be increased to 5,000,000 tons he put forward nothing more nor less than an academic abstraction. To produce 5,000,000 tons of sugar in the Philippines would require a new investment which would run into the billions; and we, who have spent many years in endeavoring to extend Philippine business have no scintilla of thought where the money would come from. Unless the world price of sugar shows a natural profit and promises to do so for a period of years, no new investments in sugar will be made. The article has caused so much grief in recent years in financial circles that it has lost its sweetness to investors. In the pamphlet, The Philippine Question, it was stated that probably less than 1 per cent of the billions of lAmerican money invested abroad during the past 11 years had been invested in the Philippines. In the light of fuller knowledge, I desire to amend this so that in place of " 1 per cent " it will read "one-sixteenth of 1 per cent." Unwittingly a great injustice has been done the Philippine Islands by denying to them fixity of tenure during all these years. It has prevented any important capital from going into the islands. Had Congress, in 1924, as was then proposed, definitely fixed the status of the Philippines for a period of years, the islands would to-day be very much nearer a self-sustaining basis under independence than they are. Senator VANDENBERG. Are you referring to the plan submitted by the then Secretary of War Weeks? Mr. ORTH. Yes; the plan that was generally known as the Fairfield plan. I may say, Senator, that I did not mean by these remarks to particularly indorse that plan or any other. I was simply making an observation in connection with it. New investments in the Philippines need not necessarily be in sugar, coconut oil, or tobacco. There probably will be, and should be, natural increases in these articles, which increases, however, it should be borne in mind, will depend tenfold more upon the prices of them than upon any other condition. The great natural resources and fertility of the islands offer ample fields for investments which will help the islands and will not hurt any established American industries or occupations; for instance, there is considerable agitation in the United States regarding an advance, or threatened advance, in the price of newsprint paper. There are sound reasons for believing that sugar-cane bagasse can be converted into paper if the thing is undertaken under the proper auspices and on a proper scale. The production of bagasse in the Philippines is probably 7,000,000 tons per annum. Of this, a certain minor percentage is used for fuel in the sugar mills and the balance is destroyed; the four or five million tons so destroyed, I believe, can be converted into paper. It takes seven or eight years to bring a rubber tree into bearing. The Philippines have never had a chance, in view of the uncertainty of their status, to approach the subject of rubber bearing on a commercial basis. The Philippines can grow coffee, pineapples, cocoa, pepper, and a score of other things which continental United States does not produce, but nothing has been done about these articles. Their INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS mines can be exploited and are practically untouched. Their forests are almost exclusively hard lumber of a kind which is not produced in the United States. Every year approximately 30,000 tons of coconut fiber are destroyed in the Philippines, and it is believed that this can be put to sound commercial uses. Other examples could be cited, but these will probably suffice to suggest a picture of how the economic independence of the Philippines can be brought about without alarm or harm to American producers. Reference was made in the pamphlet," The Philippine Question," to the position of the newspapers of the country. The file of editorial clippings which we have shows as follows: Sixty-one and six-tenths per cent indicate opposition to independence; 19.7 per cent indicate that they favor independence; 18.7 per cent treat on the subject of independence, but give no indication of their own opinion about it. The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry I did not catch the percentages. What do those percentages represent? Are they percentages of the letters you received? Mr. ORTH. No. The Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, for approximately five or six months, has made an earnest attempt to see what the editorial opinion of the newspapers of the United States was with respect to the Philippine independence. We have collected a total of between 2,500 and 3,000 clippings. We have discarded the great bulk of those because they were merely news articles; and have gotten down to straight editorial expressions of opinion. They have been classified, and I think approximately 500 clippings remained after sifting out the 3,000, more or less. They have been classified and they show that 61.6 per cent of the total number of clippings indicated opposition to independence. Senator r'DINGs. Did you say "indicated" or "stated ' Mr. ORTH. It was very, very difficult to — Senator TYDiNGS. Some of them were rather neutral, were they not?' Mr. ORTH. I will try to cover that in another category. Senator VANDENBERG. Were those from all over the country, Mi. Orth, or were they centralized in the Easte Mr. ORTH. They were from all over' the country. We mader a subscription to a press clipping bureau in New York. Realizing that such a bureau might get more or less local expressions o opinion, we wrote to them and asked them to endeavor, to the best of their ability, to get clippings from all over the country, particularly the Southern and Mountain States. We also wrote, as I remember it, to the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce anid asked them if there was a press clipping bureau in the South that would give us clippings from southern newspapers. We endeavored to fnd press clipping bureaus in Colorado, Idaho and so forth, but did not succeed in' doing so. Senator VANDENBERG.,Would, you have any objection to slbmitting subsequently the tabulation of those newspapers?Mr. ORTH. The names of them. i Senator VANDENBERG. Yes. Mr. ORTH. I shall be very glad to do it. It is a tremen6oiis3 ob, but it.c e '.:b do....: buct an~ be don. 188 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (The following list was subsequently furnished by Mr. Orth:) [Newspapers containing editorials relating to Philippine independence question. Tabulation by Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce (Inc.), February 5, 1930] Alabama: Birmingham News, Montgomery Journal-Times, Mobile Item. Arizona: Phoenix Republican, Phoenix Gazette, Douglas Dispatch, Winslow Mail, Bisbee Review. Arkansas: Fort Smith Times-Record. California: San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco News, Eureka HumboldtStandard, Los Angeles Express, Fortuna Advance, Long Branch Record, Los Angeles Examiner, Modesta Herald, Napa Register. Alhambra Post Advance, Anaheim Bulletin, San Pedro News-Pilot, Los Angeles Times, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Salinas Index-Journal, Sacramento Union, San Jose Mercury-Herald, Oxnard Courier, Redwood Tribune, Merced Sun-Star, Oroville Mercury-Register, Riverside Press, Colusa Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, Hollywood News, San Bernardino Sun, Long Beach Sun, Chico Record, Berkeley Gazette, Los Angeles News, Montrose Press, Vallejo Times-Herald, Fresno Republican, Oakland Tribune. Colorado: Fort Collins Express, Colorado Springs Evening Telegraph. Boulder Miner, Colorado Springs Gazette, Sterling Advocate, Colorado Springs Telegram, Denver Rocky Mountain News, Hayden Republic, Montrose Press, Loveland Herald, Greeley Tribune. Connecticut: Norwich Bulletin, Hartford Courant, South Manchester Herald, New Haven Journal Courier, New London Day, Stamford Advocate, New Britain Record, Middletown Press, Hartford Times, New Britain Record. Delaware: Wilmington News, Wilmington Journal. District of Columbia: Washington Post, Washington News. Florida: Daytona Beach News-Journal. Georgia: Columbus Ledger, Rome News-Tribune, Atlanta Journal, Valdosta Times, Atlanta Constitution, Augusta Chronicle, Atlanta Georgian, Rome NewsTribune. Idaho: Blackfoot Daily Bulletin. Illinois: Belleville Advocate, Chicago News, Galesburg Register Mail, Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, Rockford Republic, Chicago Tribune, Morris Herald, Alton Telegraph, Elgin News, Springfield Register, Chicago American. Indiana: Goshen Democrat, Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, South Bend Times, South Bend Tribune, Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis News, Indianapolis Times, Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, Lafayette Journal-Courier, Vincennes Sun, Evansville Journal, Kokomo Tribune, Anderson Bulletin, Marion Chronicle, Terre Haute Star. Iowa: Iowa City Iowan, Waterloo Courier, Dubuque Times, Des Moines Tribune, Davenport Times, Iowa City Press, Burlington Gazette, Dubuque Herald, Council Bluffs Nonpareil, Sioux City Tribune. Kansas: McPherson Republican. Kentucky: Louisville Courier-Journal, Louisville Times. Louisiana: New Orleans Times-Picayune, New Orleans States, New Orleans Item. Maine: Lewistown Sun, Portland Express, Portland Press-Herald, Bangor Commercial, Lewistown Journal, Bath Times, Bangor News. Maryland: Baltimore Post, Cumberland Times, Oakland Democrat, Baltimore Sun, Baltimore Evening Sun. Massachusetts: Fall River Herald-News, Springfield Republican, Springfield Union, Springfield Evening Union, Boston Evening Globe, Boston Traveler, Boston Globe, Boston Post, Worcester Telegram, Worcester Gazette, Boston Herald, Lowell Courier, Lawrence Eagle, Taunton Gazette, Worcester Post, Boston Christian Science Monitor, Greenfield Courier, Springfield Courier, Lowell Courier-Citizen, Newburyport News-Herald, Fall River Herald-News. Michigan: Detroit Free Press, Ann Arbor Times, Lansing Capital News, Lansing State Journal, Detroit News, Grand Rapids Herald, Salte Ste. Marie News, Pontiac Press, Adrian Telegram, Houghton Gazette. Battle Creek Moon Journal, Port Huron Herald, Sandusky Tribune, Jackson Patriot, Saginaw News, Lansing Capital News. Minnesota: St. Paul Pioneer Press, St. Paul Dispatch, Minneapolis Star, Minneapolis Tribune, St. Paul News, Minneapolis Evening Tribune, Red Wing Eagle, Duluth News-Tribune, Fosstan Thirteen Towns, Rochester Bulletin. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 189 Mississippi: Greenwood Commonwealth, Cumberland Times, Jackson News, Hattiesburg American. Missouri: Kansas City Journal, Kansas City Times, St. Louis Star, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Joplin Globe, St. Joseph Gazette, Kansas City Star. Montana: Helena Independent, Butte Post, Missoula Sentinel, Billings Standard, Lewistown Democrat News, Boseman Chronicle. Nebraska: Omaha News Bee, Hastings Tribune, Kearney Hub, Omaha World Herald, Lincoln Star, South Sioux City Eagle. Nevada: Winnemucca Star. New Hampshire: Keene Sentinel. New Jersey: Paterson Call, Trenton Times, Paterson Press-Guardian, Camden Courier, Passaie Herald, Plainfield News. New Mexico: Albuquerque Journal, Raton Range. New York: New York Telegram, New York News, New York Graphic, Brooklyn Citizen, Buffalo Times, Danville Advertiser, New York Herald Tribune, New York World, New York Evening World, New York Times, New York Republic, New York Journal of Commerce, Elmira Advertiser, Albany KnickerbockerPress, Troy Record, Potsdam Courier, Rochester Times Union, Syracuse Herald, Plattsburg Republican, Malone Telegram, Cortland Standard, Newburgh News, Kingston Freeman, White Plains Reporter, Watertown Times, Niagara Falls Gazette, Medina Tribune, New York Evening Sun, Troy Record, New York American, New York Mirror, New York National Bottlers' Gazette, Brooklyn Times, Brooklyn Eagle, Jamestown Morning Post, Bronx North Side News, Schenectady Gazette, Schenectady Union Star, Warwick Advertiser, Albany Evening News, Albany Times Union, Port Jervis Union Gazette, Warwick Advertiser, Elmira Star Gazette, Wall Street Journal, Syracuse Post Standard, Barrons, New York Herald, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York Telegraph, Ithaca Journal News, Staten Island Times, Rome Sentinel, Binghamton Press, Gloversville Republican, New York Post. North Carolina: High Point Enterprise, Goldsboro Argus, Winston-Salem Sentinel, Wilmington Star, High Point Evening Enterprise, Gastonia Gazette, Durham Herald, Asheville Times, Winston-Salem Journal. North Dakota: Fargo Forum, Bismarck Tribune, Jamestown Sun. Ohio: Cincinnati Post, Toledo Times, Portsmouth Sun, Dayton Herald, Dayton News, Cleveland Press, Pomeroy Tribune, Ironton Tribune, Columbus Dispatch, Columbus Citizen, Canton News, Ohio State Journal, Marion Star, Youngstown Vindicator, Zanesville Times-Recorder, Hamilton News, Mount Vernon Republican, Findlay Courier, Findlay Republican, New Philadelphia Times, Cincinnati Commercial-Tribune, Cleveland News. Oklahoma: Tulsa World, Drumright Derrick, Norman Transcript, Miami News, Enid Eagle. Oregon: Medford News, Eugene Register, Portland Telegram, Portland Oregonian, Salem Journal. Pennsylvania: Harrisburg News, Franklin City News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Public Ledger, Johnstown Democrat, Pittsburgh Press, Allentown Leader, New Kensington Dispatch, Bradford Era, Meadville Tribune Republican, Sharon Herald, Du Bois Courier, Norristown Times-Herald, Bradford Era, Wilkes-Barre Record, Philadelphia Bulletin, Philadelphia Record, Philadelphia Public Record, Pittston Gazette, Punxsutawney Spirit, Tyrone Herald, Meadville Republican, Scranton Times, Oil City Blizzard, Washington Observer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Johnstown Democrat. Rhode Island: Providence Journal, Providence News, Providence Bulletin, Providence Journal. South Carolina: Charleston News and Courier, Sumter Item, Columbia State, Charleston News. South Dakota: Aberdeen American, Mandon Pioneer, Watertown Public Opinion, Aberdeen News. Tennessee: Memphis Commercial Appeal, Chattanooga News, Johnson City Chronicle, Nashville Tennesseean, Bristol Herald Courier, Knoxville News Sentinel, Nashville Banner. Texas: Houston Chronicle, Houston Post-Dispatch, Texarkana Gazette, Fort Worth Telegram, San Antonio Light, El Paso Times, Wichita Falls Record News, Dallas Times-Herald, Dallas Herald, San Antonio Express, Galveston Tribune, Waco Times-Herald, Plainview Herald, Fort Worth Record-Telegram, Edinburg Review, El Paso Times. 190 INDEPENDENCE FOIB THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Utah: Salt Lake City Deseret News, Salt Lake City Telegram. Ogden City Standard Examiner, Great Falls Leader. Lewistown Democrat, Livingston Enterprise. Vermont: St. Albans Messenger. Virginia: Newport News, Roanoke Times, Portsmouth Star. Lynchlburg News, Richmond Times-Dispatch. Washington: Shelton Mason County Journal, Seattle Times. Seattle Star. Anacortes Mercury Citizen, Walla Walla Bulletin, Olympia Evening Olympian, Mount Vernon Daily Herald, Olympia Morning Olympian. Tacoma Times, Tacoma News Tribune. Yakima Daily Republic, Tacoma Ledgler. Kelso Daily Tribune, Bellingham Herald, Yakima Morning Herald. West Virginia: Wheeling News, Fairmont Times. Wheelingll Iitell"',ticer'. Charleston Gazette. Wisconsin: Milwaukee Sentinel, La Crosse Tribune, Racine Times-Call. Madlison Journal, Green Bay Press-Gazette. Eau Claire Leader. Madison Times. Racine Journal News, Milwaukee News, Milwaukee Journal, Milwaukee Ev-miing Journal. Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Orth, will you please make anothelr i:te in that connection? If it is possible I would like to know the number of those who state definitely that they are opposed to Philippine independence, and those that are for Philippine independence, and those that are more or less neutral. The ChAIRIMAN. I gather that that is what he did in the percentages at the time I interrupted him. Will you repeat those percentages? I am sorry to have interrupted you. Mr. ORTrI. Sixty-one and six-tenths per cent indicate opposition to indepenendece; 19.7 per cent indicate that they favor independence: 18.7 per cent treat on the subject of independence, but rgive no indication of their own opinion about it. If the subject is of any interest to the committee. I had a recapitulation made here. a copy of which I will be very glad to furnish the committee. The CuHAIRM.rAN. What is the nature of the recapitulation? Mr. ORTH. It shows how many articles were received from each state. The CHAIRMAyN. That, I gathered, was what Senator Vandenberg wanted, rather than that you should do additional work on it. Senator TYDINGS. Is that the list of 500, or the total list? Mr. ORTH. I think that is the 500. Senator VATNDENBERG. This is the editorials. MIr. ORTH. I merelv wanted to add that this analvsis was hon:orably and conscientiously made. Every editorial xwhich we could possibly obtain was included, and special efforts were made to secure editorials from the Southern and Mountain States. The compilation includes editorials from 47 out of the 48 States of the Union, and we strongly believe that it constitutes a valuable reflection of the public opinion of the people of the United States on the Philippine question. Senator TYDINGS. I am obliged to leave, and if the chairman will permit me to ask a few questions before I go, I would like to ask them while Mr. Orth is on the stand. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator TYDINGS. Referring to your pamphlet, on page 10, which wtas issued by the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, I find this statement. Speaking of not knowing when action on the Philippine question would be taken-in other words, the question INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 191 of what was going to be done being left indefinite-you have this sentence: ' If this uncertainty were removed and positive tenure for a fixed period were established, capital would go to the islands and they would be established on a self-supporting basis." I wanted to ask you what you thought, in your opinion, would be the time that we might fix-50, 75, or 25 years-or what you think about it? Mr. ORTH. My best judgment would be-pardon me if I do not immediately answer the question. Senator TYDINGS. I know it is a pretty big one, but I am just trying to get an opinion. Mr. ORTH. My version regarding the Philippines is that if Congress approves they ought eventually to be made independent, because Congress has promised it to them. Senator TYDINGS. But, as to the question of time Mr. ORTH. I do not believe they should be made independent and consigned to chaos and hardship, which will undoubtedly be the case if independence is given now, or within any comparatively near date. But I do believe that we absolutely owe it to the Filipinos to put them on a proper economic basis, which we have not done, because we have insisted upon keeping them dangling in mid-air. Senator TYDINGS. What would you say would be that basis? Mr. ORTH. I referred here to the possibility of getting newsprint paper out of the waste of the sugar cane. It would be a perfectly fair proposition from a commercial point of view to establish an industry of that kind, and give it a chance to amortize itself. I am talking from the strictly technical trade standpoint. Senator TYDINGS. I see the wisdom of your contention. I was trying to get your opinion as to what time you thought we ought to put in the law. Mr. ORTH. I should say there should be time for any new enterprise which might be started there to amortize itself. It would be no good to start enterprises such as we have been doing. There have been minor investments in the Philippines, but nothing of any importance, nothing that is fair to those people. There should be time enough to put important investments there and properly develop their resources, utilize their waste products, and so forth. The growth of rubber, coffee, sugar, cocoa, pepper, and these other things would require the investment of large sums of capital. That investment would have to be made on a safe basis. I should say an ordinary amortization period would be approximately 20 years. Senator TYDINGS. Would you think, if we were to insert in one of these bills a proposition that we would pass it now, and in 20 years-in 1950-the Philippines should be free and independent of the United States, that that would be all right? Mr. ORTH. From the trade point of view, I think it would, if Congress wanted to do it. Senator TYDINGS. Would you not run into this situation? Suppose you went in there to develop the paper supply, or any of the other things you have mentioned. Would not American capital be in the same position it is now? About the time they got it amortized and got it going, Philippine independence would come along, and then they would be at the mercy of the Philippines? 192 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. ORTH. They would be in and out. Senator TYDINGS. They would pay it off, only to have it taken over by the Philippine government. Mr. ORTH. They could sell it to Philippine investors or they could abandon it. Suppose somebody should put $5,000,000 into a papermaking plant in the Philippines and amortize it over a period of 20 years. They would have to charge off a part of the investment every year, so that at the end of 20 years they would be done. If they got nothing for it, it would not matter. Senator TYDINGS. At the end of 20 years how much difference do you think there would be in the ability of the Filipinos to govern themselves as compared with their present ability? Mr. ORTH. I think that with the prospect of independence definitely in sight that ability would be vastly improved. We have seen here in Washington and I have seen in the Philippines examples of men of first-class capacity in governmental circles. That more of those men could be developed there i:: no shadow of doubt. But I do not believe that at the present moment the Filipinos, either by experience or tradition. possess a sufficient amount of governmental instinct, or genius, as you may call it, to conduct the government of the islands. But I do believe that with the prospect of independence definitely in sight they would very soon develop the necessary talent. Senator TYDINGS. Do you think that the very fact that they had this goal toward which they were working would teach them more than anything else? Mr. ORTH. It seems to me there would be no question about it. They would have something definite to go on. Now they have nothing but uncertainty. Senator TYDINGS. ILet me ask you one or two questions before I go. Would you yourself, as a business man. go out into the Philippine Islands in an entirely new venture, knowing that in 20 years the Philippine independence would be granted, and put millions and millions of dollars there into a big industry? Mr. ORTIr. I would not, Senator, because I have not got it. But I would attempt to get other people to do it. I would, undoubtedly, provided the obligation on the part of the United States Government were definite and solemn enough, and provided also that it would be accepted by the Philippine legislature. Then I would bend every effort to bring about those investments. Senator TYDINGS. What commodities have you in mind that might be handled that way? Mr. ORTH. I have indicated already, I think, Senator, a number of them. For instance, I believe the utilization of the sugar-cane bagasse and its conversion into paper is one of the biggest things in the future of the Philippines. Senator BROUSSARD. Do you not think we ought to develop that industry in the United States, where we have sugar-cane bagasse? The Government has not done it. Mr. ORTH. I think we ought to do it. Senator BROUSSARD. Why do we not do it for our own people here? Mr. ORTH. I think we ought to do it, but I do not think we have enough sugar cane bagasse here to make it worth while. Senator BROUSSARD. There is enough for the Government to experiment on, is there not? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 193 The CCHAIRMAN. Your idea was not that the United States Government should help to develop the conversion of the bagasse, was it? Mr. ORTH. No. I am of the same opinion as Mr. Brown, I think. Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Orth. If, in 20 years, the Philippines would be capable of maintaining the government, as you say, and, in other words, if we would be safe in giving the Philippines their independence in 20 years, all things considered-their ability to run the islands, and everything-you must think that the Filipinos have, in fact, almost reached that point, because there would only be one new generation between now and 1950, so that if they were going to be able to conduct their affairs along a plane that would be satisfactory in 1950, they can not be so far down the scale now, can they? Mr. ORTH. Yes, I think they are 20 years down the scale; 20 years is a very long time, and a great many people can develop, if they work at that development instead of simply regarding it as an academic abstraction. Senator TYDINGS. If, as you say, this goal were placed before them, it would have a great effect in stabilizing their government, and they would work toward independence and gain a lot of efficiency in government if they knew that in 1950 they were to be free. Suppose we were to give them their freedom in five years. Would not that same argument hold, and would not 15 years experience in runing their government be better than 15 years expectancy of running their government? Mr. ORTH. I think if it were done in five years it would be a quarter as good as if it were done in 20. The Filipinos are running a large part of their government now. Senator TYDINGS. Are they not running all of it? Mr. ORTH. They are running all of it, except theSenator TYDINGS. They run the legislature. Mr. ORTH. They run the legislature. Senator TYDINGS. All the appointees are Filipinos. Mr. ORTH. Yes. Senator TYDINGS. The only official is the Governor General. There is some exception in the case of school-teachers, of course, but practically all the civil personnel are Filipinos. During the war there was not a soldier in the Philippines. That is true, is it not? Mr. ORTH. What is that? Senator TYDINGS. There was not an American soldier in the Philippine Islands during the war. Mr. ORTH. I think that is substantially correct. Senator TYDINGS. They were all taken out. Did any disturbance break out, or was there any great change when the Americans departed from the Philippine Islands during the war? Mr. ORTH. No; I think there was not. Senator TYDINGS. What constitutes the ability of a country to govern itself, in your judgment? Mr. ORTH. The traditions of government and experience in applying them. Senator TYDINGS. Do you think that the Philippine government compares well with the governments of South America-Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Peru, and Uruguay? 194 INLEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. ORTH. Yes; I do. Senator TYDINGS. I think so, too. Do you think it compares with Mexico? Do you think it is more stable than the Government of Mexico? Mr. ORTH. I prefer not to answer that question, as I have interests in both countries. Senator TYDINGS. That is a good answer. I want to thank you, Mr. Orth. I am obliged to leave at this time. Senator BRpUSSARD. Mr. Orth, may I ask you whether you appeared before the Ways and Means Committee of the House or the Finance Committee of the Senate? Mr. ORTH. I did not, sir. Senator BnROUSSARD. Do you know who represented your organization there before the committee? Mr. ORTH. I am not sure, Senator, whether anybody definitely represented the organization. A number of our members appeared there and spoke for themselves. Senator BROUSSARD. I will tell you the purpose of my question. I have not with me now the hearings, but my recollection is that one of the representatives, or somebody from your organization, testified that the Philippines were prepared for government in every way except in an economic way. Have you ever read that testimony? Mr. ORTH. I don't recall it. Senator BROUSSARD. I will look it up and I will put it in the record. I do not know whose testimony it was. I thought it was yours, but if you did not appear, it could not have been yours, of course. (The excerpt from the hearings by the Finance Committee on the tariff act of 1929, referred to by Senator Broussard, was subsequently furnished by him for the record, as follows:) (NOTE.-The witness testifying was Mr. John M. Switzer, New York, representing the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce.) Senator CONNALLY. Are you in favor of independence or not? Mr. SWITZER. I am not in favor of independence, for the simple reason that economically they are not ready for it. Senator REED. When will they be? Mr. SWITZER. May I just say one word further along this line? They are not ready for it, Senator, because we set up over there a very splendid system of civilization-government, if you please-modern schools, modern roads, modern sanitation, and modern everything. That is an oasis of western civilization right in the midst of the Orient. You can not support that kind of a civilization; you can not support that kind of a standard on the economic standards prevailing throughout the Orient. The gentleman who preceded me proposes to knock the very economic props out from under them. He proposes to strait-jacket them. Senator CONNALLY. I am talking about you, now. I am not talking about the gentleman who preceded you. Mr. SWITZER. I am saying, don't knock the props out from under them. Senator CONNALLY. Don't give them freedom? Mr. SWITZER. Don't give them their independence now, because they are not economically ready for it. Senator BARKLEY. Are they politically ready for it? Mr. SWITZER. I say politically, they probably are, but economically, God knows they are a long way from it. Senator BARKLEY. Which should have the greater consideration, their political preparedness or their economic unpreparedness? Mr. SWITZEB. Senator, don't you believe-I do, at least-that we have arrived at a stage of civilization and government where you have to have economic prosperity to have progress along pretty much any of your cultural lines? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 195 Senator BARKLEY. YOU think the two things are intertwined, then, so as to be inseparable? Mr. SWITZER. That is right, sir. Senator HAWES. Mr. Orth, are you through with your statement? Mr. ORTH. Yes. Senator HAWES. I want you to understand very distinctly that what I was trying to arrive at was to find out where the organized opposition to Philippine independence came from, whether it came from your organization or not, because we have been receiving communications, evidently inspired from one source. I see no objection to that. As a matter of fact, your statement shows that it is a fact. In connection with the newspaper publications, have you been sending communications to the press of the country from your organization? Mr. ORTH. Yes. We have sent to the press of the country last summer, as I think I indicated in this memorandum-we sent every daily and weekly paper of the United States a copy of a pamphlet entitled "A Square Deal for the Philippines," and we have sent every newspaper in the country a copy of this little pamphlet which you have before you. Senator HAWES. Then, after they had received these two pamphlets opposing independence, and one of them asking for a square deal, and this one before us, you then collected the editorials. What I am getting at is this, that your organization, very frankly, and perhaps very properly, has been working against Philippine independence in the press and through manufacturers and your associates, and wherever you could reach it. Then you have sent out two communications to all the newspapers of the United States taking a hostile view. After having done that, you collected the editorials as a result of two communications. I do not know of any having been sent on the other side. Senator VANDENBERG. Is that on the theory that newspapers write editorials as soon as they get a piece of propaganda? SenatorHAwEs. No; but if you only hear one side-even the Senator, who is a great editor himself, is human enough to think there is no other side unless it is presented to him. The CHAIRMAN. That does not sound to me like the editorial writers of New England. I do not know about Missouri. I thought they had to be shown out there. Senator HAWES. To get through with that, I am not criticizing you or your associates at all. You have a perfect right to do what you have done, and it is not even subjected to criticism, but your organization is fighting these bills as they now stand. Mr. ORTH. No; that is not correct, Senator. Our organization is not fighting any specific legislative measure or advocating any specific legislative measure. It is simply stating facts and principles. Senator HAWES. As you see them. Mr. ORTH. As we see them. I beg your pardon. Before I get away from that, I did not answer your question. The answer to your question is essentially no. It is impossible to answer the question exactly in the form in which you put it. We began receiving clippings before we sent out anything to the newspapers. The analysis of the clippings received before we sent 92109-30-PT 2 6 196 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS anything to the newspapers showed no material change in the attitude of the editors from that shown by the editors after they had received our little squibs. I believe I have somewhere in the office an analysis of editorial expression made before we sent anything to the newspapers, and it is substantially the same as this present expression. Senator HAWES. Of course, you realize that the expressions of opinion were prior to any hearings on that subject by this committee and prior to the discussion that was precipitated in the tariff matter last fall. In other words, to put it on a selfish basis, if you please, 5,000,000 union men. represented by their national organizations; all the farm organizations in the United States; and all the dairy organizations ill the United States; and, in so far as it could be given, the beetsugar raisers of 11 States, the cane-sugar industry of one State. and capital representing not millions but two billions, as I understand it, of American money invested in Cuba have all expressed their views. Put those things on a selfish basis. I hope this thing will be settled on a higher basis than that, but all those interests take a position exactly contrary to your own, on a selfish basis. Those facts had not been presented to the newspapers at the time you collected these expressions of opinion. Mr. ORTH. At the time we started collecting these expressions of opinion the newspapers, so far as my recollection goes, confined themselves almost entirely to criticisms of the fact that the agitation for the independence of the Philippines was based upon tariff considerations. Senator HAWMES. That is a proper criticism. Mr. ORTH. I have seen practically nothing in the editorials which I have read dealing with the labor part of it. There may have been some references to it, but very few. Possibly the recent unfortunate happenings in California may emphasize and increase those references. It would be very interesting to see what the reaction is. Th(e CHAIRMAN. Mr. Orth, can you continue this afternoon? Senator VANDENBERG. May I ask one question before you suspend? Mr. Orth, as I understand it, while you do not approve any specific pending proposal, so far as the philosophy of procedure is concerned, you indorse the philosophy of procedure of the Fairfield bill of 1924? Mr. ORTH. Yes. I indorse that in principle. Senator VANDENBERG. That is what I wanted to get at. The CHAIRMAN. The hearings will be adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS The committee met, pursuant to recess, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate Commerce in the Capitol Building at 2 o'clock p. m. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Is there anything further that you would like to offer, Mr. Orth? But perhaps we had better wait a moment. I have been asked by the Speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives to place in INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 197 the record a resolution passed by the House of Representatives of the State of Kentucky favoring the granting of immediate and complete independence to the Filipinos. (The resolution referred to and submitted-by the chairman is here printed in full, as follows:) Mr. Gilbert, of the county of Shelby, offered the following resolution, viz: HOUSE RESOLUTION FOR PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE Whereas holding in subjection, in any degree, a foreign people is repugnant to the ideals upon which this Government was founded; and Whereas the people of this country, through their representatives, have repeatedly promised the Filipino people their independence; and Whereas it is to the best interests of this country, as well as to the best interests of the Philippines,, from a military, from an economic, and from a moral standpoint, that the two Governments and people be separate and independent: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of this House of Representatives of the State of Kentucky that there be granted to the Filipino people immediate and complete independence. Said resolution was adopted. Attest: CLIFFORD W. THOMAS, Chief Clerk House of Representatives. JANUARY 29, 1930, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hawes, do you desire to ask Mr. Orth any questions Senator HAWES. Just a few, if you please. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Orth, will you take the stand again, please? STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. ORTH, PRESIDENT PHILIPPINE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NEW YORK, N. Y.-Resumed Senator HAWES. We have before us some resolutions and bills, one granting complete and immediate independence, the other providing for a commission to examine the question, and a third by Senator Vandenberg putting independence off for a period of years and providing for regulation of tariff rates at certain periods but not to be operative until the end of 10 years. My attention was attracted to this very significant statement of yours on page 107 of part 1 of the printed record, wherein you spoke of the uncertainty of the political status of the islands. You have your own private interests and the interests of your organization, and the thought has developed in my mind that this question of uncertainty is, after all, probably one of the controlling factors. Due to that uncertainty, American capital will not go into the Philippines in large sums, as you indicated this morning, and, of course, foreign capital will not go there at all. The longer this period of uncertainty exists the more difficult will become the readjustments which would follow independence. The harder it is for the Filipinos to accustom themselves to a certain condition, the harder for American capital to adjust itself. So that the element of time is a very important element in determining, after certain conditions are complied with, when independence should be granted. What I would like to ask you is this. Is it not true that this uncertainty, as you state it, is harmful both to the American merchant and importer and to the Filipinos Mr. ORTH. Yes; it is. 198 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. And that there ought to be a period fixed so that the Filipinos can adjust themselves and so that American capital can adjust itself? Mr. ORTH. I think so. Senator HAWES. As I understand it, you are not opposed to independence under any circumstances? Mr. ORTH. No; I am not. Senator HAWES. You would favor it under certain limitations and conditions? Mr. ORTH. I would. Senator HAWES. So that the element of time, after all, is the big question, I take it? MIr. ORTH. It is, Senator. Senator HAIWES. Now, as to the element of time, the Senator from Michigan has presented a very interesting suggestion, that we make allowance for that. Have you read his bill yet? Mr. ORTH. I was just in the act of reading it, Senator. Senator HAWEs. He will explain it to you. After all, you believe that independence must come some time and that it ought to be made definite? Do I state your position correctly? Mr. ORTH. I think that our promise to the Filipinos ought to be redeemed. I think they should be given their independence. I believe that we have been recreant in the observance of our duty toward the Filipinos and we have not given them a chance, by maintaining 31 years of utter uncertainty regarding their affairs. Senator HAWES. There is just one other thought, Mr. Orth. Several of the witnesses this morning seemed to assume that independence meant a tariff wall. That does not necessarily follow. It simply means that with independence the American Congress could regulate immigration to this country; it could leave coconut oil, for instance, and all those articles, on the free list, if that is desired, or it could put them on the dutiable list. So that, after all, independence is not inseparably bound up with the tariff. That is subject to what Congress might say about it. I just wanted to call that to your attention. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true, right in that connection, that if Congress did not say anything except what it said in the King bill, independence would lead to the erection of a tariff boundary just as much in the Philippines as in any other country? Senator BROUSSARD. It would not unless you repealed section 301. Section 301 is now the law and applies to the relations between the two countries. Senator HAWES. I think the Philippines are expressly excluded now from the tariff act. The CHAIRMAN. But does the Senator hold that the expression in the tariff act, the Philippine Islands, if that is the expression used Senator BROUSSARD. They would be exempt under that law, just the same, unless you repeal it. The CHAIRMAN. Does the Senator hold that the expression " Philippine Islands" is an expression referring to a dependency of the United States and would obtain just the same if the Philippine Islands were an independent country? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 199 Senator HAWES. Yes. I think the Congress, after granting independence, would regulate its commerce with the Philippines in any manner that it might desire. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, of course; there is no question about that. We could have a reciprocity treaty with them or we could arrange our tariff with them in any way we saw fit. Senator HAWES. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. I judge from the implication of what the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Louisiana said, that unless there were something of that kind, the present tariff law, section 301 of the present lawSenator BROUSSARD. And of the pending legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Would provide for special treatment of the Philippine Islands. Personally I do not think the Senator from Missouri believes that. Senator HAWES. Oh, no; I do not. Mr. Orth, there are two branches of this subject. One is what Senator Johnson referred to the other day as the selfish motive. We can put in that class, if you want to, union labor, and we can put into that class the farmer, and we can put into that class the dairyman and certain of our American manufacturers. Then we have in that same class your organization, which has as its object protecting the trade which it has developed there. But are there not great American traditions to be preserved and human questions to be solved that are separated entirely from these conflicting selfish motives, if you please? You realize that these people have been living in the hope that independence would be granted and that this uncertainty should be terminated at some time and the period made definite, do you not? Mr. ORTH. I do, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever come in contact with an opinion of any of the leaders of the Philippines, such as that once expressed to me by one of the more distinguished of the Filipino leaders, that they would not be asking for independence if they believed that they could eventually secure American citizenship and American statehood? Mr. ORTH. No, Senator. I have not heard that. The CHAIRMAN. I was told when'in the Philippines and since returning home that the expressions of opinion of various American Presidents and statesmen to the effect that the Philippines never could expect to become an integral part of the United States were among the principal motives leading them to desire independence; that their aspirations for liberty would make them entirely satisfied to remain under the United States flag if they could be assured that some day they would have the same liberty as have the citizens of the several states of the Union. Mr. ORTH. I have not heard that, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Senator BROUSSARD. Who is Mr. Switzer? Mr. ORTH. He is a member of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce and formerly its president. He is now retired from active business, but having lived in the Philippines for over 20 years he has a great interest in them. Senator BROUSSARD. He is still a member of your organization? 200 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. ORTH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That seems to be all, Mr. Orth. And may I compliment you on the very frank and full manner in which vou have given tlhe committee the inside workings of your organization, the source of its receipts and the way in which they have been spent. Mr. OKTRH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Th e CHAIRMAN. I desire to place in the record at this point a telegram just received from the Capital City Products Co., of Columbus, Ohio, reading as follows: COLUMBUs. OHIO, February 3, 1930. Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM. Chairman Territories and Insular Affairs, United States Senate Building: We desire to protest against the granting of Philippine independence for tariff reasons, particularly that coconut oil and sugar may be taxed. We are refiners of coconut, peanut, corn, and cotton oils, and also manufacturers of margarine, mayonnaise, salad oils, and compounds. Our protest is based on the following reasons: Coconut oil is not interchangeable with oils produced in this country. A tariff on coconut oil from the Philippines would not relieve the situation, in so far as the American agricultural interests are concerned, because of the large price differential now existing. Total production of margarine is only 15 per cent of the total production of butter, and nut margarine produced is only two-thirds of the total; therefore nut margarine made from coconut oil produced in this country is only 10 per cent of the total butter production. The amount of the tariff would simply be passed on to the American consumer, not only on margarine but crackers, biscuits, confections, and man- othe edlible arrticls and the entire soap-consuming trade. Sincerely request your earnest consideration of the factors involved in this question. CAPITAL CITY PRODUCTS Co., E. P. KELLY. I have received from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, from the editor of the editorial page, Mr. George S. Johns, who has recently come back from a trip to the Philippines, an article on the Philippines and independence in which he expresses the view that the islands, with the conditions now existing, are not ripe for self-government. I invited Mr. Johns to appear here, but he stated that he had put all of his material into the article, and so I am going to ask that this article be printed in the record. Senator HAWES. There are three articles by Mr. Johns. The CHAIRMAN. I believe there are five altogether. Senator HAWES. I would like to have them all put in. He is a very dear personal friend of mine, and I contemplated putting them in myself. It would be manifestly unfair to put in one without putting them all in. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if the Senator wishes, they will be printed. (The article referred to and submitted by the chairman, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of October 27, 1929, written by George S. Johns, is here printed in full, as follows:) THE PHILIPPINES AND INDEPENDENCE ISLANDS UNDER CONDITIONS NOW EXISTING ARE NOT RIPE FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT This article is the second of a series of five on the Philippines Islands, based upon information obtained during a visit of about a month. The information was obtained by personal observation during a stay of two weeks in Manila, the capital of the insular government, drives around Manila, and a trip with the Governor General on his yacht Apo through the southern half of the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHIILIPPINE ISLANDS 201 Philippines as far south as Jolo in the Sulu Archipelago. It embraced the two main islands and the principal towns of the Moro country. In addition to personal observations, the writer talked with Filipino leaders, Filipino government officials, business men, the Governor General, and his advisory staff and assistants. The series contains impartial views, regardless of politics, of political, governmental, economic, educational, and other actual conditions in the islands. The third article is a message to the American people from Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. The fourth covers the resources and economic development, and the fifth touches the Moros and their conditions. LACK OF UNIFICATION, COMMON LANGUAGE, AND SUFFICIENT EDUCATION MAKES. MASSES UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE INTELLIGENTLY IN CONDUCT' OF OWN AFFAIRSPOWER OF POLITICAL BOSSISM, WHICH CONTROLS PATRONAGE IN ARCHIPELAGO, MUST BE BROKEN-TRIAL AUTONOMY, AFTER YEARS OF PREPARATION, MIGHT SOLVE PROBLEM (By George S. Johns, editor, editorial page, the Post-Dispatch) What about the independence of the Philippines? The archipelago is the football of American politics. Independence is the political slogan of Filipino leaders. We both conquered and bought the Philippines, but with the understanding that we were not to hold them forever. We were to hold them in trust for the Filipino people until they were capable of establishing and maintaining a stable, efficient government of their own. It all depends upon what is meant by a stable government. The Jones Act, which is the organic law, provided for a constitution which is a replica of ours, except that the chief executive is appointed by the President, and a governmental model of the type of ours. We have started the Filipinos on the road to a constitutional representative republican government. Are they prepared now to organize and maintain a government of that kind? This is the most difficult kinid of government to maintain. It requires general intelligence and active participation in government; on the part of the people. President Wilson uttered a great truth when he said in substance, you can not confer liberty upon a people. They must earn it and prove their capacity to use it wisely. No impartial observer of conditions in the Philippines can conclude that the Filipinos are prepared to maintain a real representative democracy. The country is not unified, there is no common language, and the masses do not and can not participate intelligently in government. There are 87 dialects and as many tribes. The schools are teaching English. The younger generation prefers it to Spanish, Tagalog, or any other dialect, but it will take several generations before English is read and spoken by a majority of the people. The largest circulation of any publication in the archipelago is 25,000 in 13,000,000 population. How can there be enlightened public opinion or a public opinion of any force under those circumstances? The dominant party maintains its overwhelming supremacy, not only by controlling all the patronage making opposition practical political ostracism. but by the cacique system. The caciques are the influential men-mestizos, as a rule- in the towns and barrios. They own land which they rent to tenants and lend money to the Taos, the Malay farmers, at usurious rates. Their debtors, tenants and farmers, are in bondage to them body and soul and they control their opinions and votes. The debtors do what the caciques tell them to do without question or they suffer. The caciques, in return for their political support and influence, obtain favors and privileges from the government officials and the courts. The combination is politically irresistible. Of course, the cacique system is gradually weakening as prosperity and popular intelligence advance. Ignorance and poverty are its soil. It still exists in large measure. There are those who declare that the caciques practically rule the local courts and officials. That is why General Aguinaldo declares that the present government is a mockery of democracy. Then there are the Moros. The primitive pagan tribes may be put aside as negligible. They, like our Indians, will be wards of any government for years. The Filipino political leaders say the Moros are negligible and will soon be absorbed under independence. No one else in the islands believes 202 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS that they are negligible or will be absorbed by the Filipinos. They may in time be exterminated by superior numbers, but not absorbed. The Moros are a fighting people. They have their own civilization and religion. They are Mohammedans, fanatic in religion. The Spaniards never conquered them. The only whipping they ever got was by the American Army, and that took hard fighting and slaughter. They respect America and Americans. They say Americans give them a square deal, but they hate and detest the Christian Filipinos. The Filipinos hate them and don't know how to deal with them. There is no reliable census but the estimate of Moro population ranges from 300,000 to 500,000, living in the Sulu Archipelago and Mindanao, the second largest island, of about 37,000 square miles. I talked with Senator Hadjibutu, the only Moro member of the senate. He is a rugged old man of 60 or more, but alert and active. When I asked him the Moro view of independence, he said with a smile, "the American flag forever. The Moros are against independence and the withdrawal of American sovereignty." "Are there no conditions under which the Moros would agree to independence?" "Independence might be worked out if it were sought by all the people of the Philippines. If they agreed beforehand and joined in a petition for independence there might be harmony and a successful government organized, but Moros want an American protectorate such as Cuba has. Under American rule the Moros are free to exercise their religion and retain their own customs and local rule. If independence were granted only on the insistence of the Filipinos, there would be danger of disastrous disturbances." Then the senator, after the Moro fashion, illustrated his viewpoint with a symbol. He compared the Philippines to a great building where many people were living. He said the American flag was the light of the building and illuminated it. If that light were taken away, the building would be in darkness. The people would grope about and come in conflict. The structure would be undermined and would collapse. The so-called old-timers, Americans who came over with the Army, or have lived and been in business there for years, are extremists. Most of them do not believe that the Filipinos will ever be able to maintain honest, stable government. They want the strong arm applied to the Filipinos. I talked, however, with several men who have had years of contact with the government and are thoroughly familiar with conditions. They were kindly disposed to the Filipinos and want them to succeed. All said emphatically that the Filipinos were not prepared for independence and the consequences would be disastrous to them and to our experiment. Citing the reasons I have touched upon-lack of general education and intelligence-the inclination of the leaders to devote their energies to the division of power and the distribution of offices, not to the real job of government, they raised several questions. What would happen in the event of independence in the present situation in the Orient? The islands are secure now under American sovereignty, but with independence the government would have to establish foreign relations. It would be free to borrow money from any nation. It might become entangled with oriental politics. Oriental nations and others with interests in the Far East would look hungrily at the resources of the Philippines. The islands nearly touch Japanese Formosa on the north and Dutch Borneo on the south. The Japanese might rush in. They have a flourishing colony now at Davao, in Mindanao. The Chinese might absorb them. The millions in the overcrowded districts across the China Sea would be tempted to move into the land of promise in the undeveloped Philippines. The archipelago might become Chinese. They are now excluded under the American law but the Filipinos would not exclude them. Senator Osmena and Speaker Roxas expressed themselves fully in America before the Committee on Ways and Means in the antitariff fight. Osmena, suave, able, intelligent, waived all objections to independence aside, 1 declaring they could all be worked out. He admitted the Filipinos would not exclude the Chinese, but he was sure they could handle the situation. Manuel Quezon is the one leader who knows what he wants to say and how to say it. He talked freely one afternoon at his handsome home in Pasay, a suburb of Manila, overlooking the bay. When I asked him what was the principal cause of the slow economic development of the islands and of the reluctance of capital to invest, he said promptly, "Uncertainty." INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 203 " What do you mean by 'uncertainty'? Is it fear of independence?" "No; independence would help; it is the uncertainty of American action. America has no fixed policy with regard to the Philippines. It is changeable and subject to the variations of home politics and to the attitude of governor generals, some ignorant of us and our conditions." " What about your restrictive land and corporation laws? " They retard developnmient, but we will not radically change them. We want to keep the land and resources of the Philippines for the Filipinos. We do not want big corporations and big business interests in the islands. We fear their influence against independence. They might defeat it. " I'll tell you the truth. We want independence now, but we do not expect it. Meanwhile we want to learn by experience how to govern ourselves. We want to handle governmental responsibilities and powers. You can't learn to swim unless you go into the water and try. We want to try government. " That all depends upon the Governor General. We have passed laws usurping executive powers. General Wood went to the other extreme. He did not cooperate with the Filipinos. He ran the government without their cooperation. Governor General Stimson set that right.. He revived the council of state. He consulted and cooperated with the Filipinos. He gave Filipino officials responsibility and power to act, retaining his power to correct or remove them when they erred. We expect Governor General Davis to follow a similar policy. He has made a fine start. He has won the friendship of the Filipinos.," They say we haven't a representative legislature. Well, 70 per cent is composed of farmers. We have so many farmers there we can't put a reasonable tax on land." " In the event of independence, would you have the means to maintain an army and navy and other necessaries of an independent nation? " " We will not need an army or navy except for police purposes. The spirit of the age is against conquest and the subjection of small to great nations. They are secure in their independence. We do not believe we would be molested. We could work out our economic problems." " How about the tariff-would you expect free trade to continue? " "No; if trade with the United States were blocked by high tariffs, we would have to seek other markets in the world. I think we could work that out." "Wold you want the United States to guarantee your neutrality and security? Would you accept a protectorate? " " We would not want a guarantee from America. That would mean the retention of power to intervene to protect American interests and to direct our own policy. We do not ask for a protectorate, but we would take it. What we want is a fixed policy. If the United States Government would declare that after 30 years it would take a plebiscite on independence and abide by the result, we would be satisfied. That would be better than present uncertainty. " It is said that the United States would lose a great advantage in the Orient by giving up the Philippines. I think America would gain. It would have the distinction of having magnanimously set up an independent Christian nationthe only one-in the Orient. We would always be friendly. It is better to have an independent nation as a friend than to hold a subject people." Quezon, Osmena, and Roxas, the Filipino political powers, are eloquent and plausible. They control the legislature and the independence funds. They put themselves forward as the voice of the Filipino people, which is largely inarticulate. They send themselves as representatives of the Filipino people to America to tell Americans what the Filipinos want. If they gained independence under present conditions, they would have complete control of the Philippines without opposition. It is a great stake to play for. The truth is the power of the existing political bossism in the islands must be broken before the feet of the Filipino people can be put in the path to genuine democratic government. The Filipinos are now incapable of doing that. They are not capable of organizing and maintaining a representative republican government such as we have outlined for them. The Filipinos, however, are progressing. Education is laying the foundation of future democracy. The United States might try them out before the final conclusion. They might after 20 years, let us say, for the preparation give them complete autonomy, retaining sovereignty and the right to intervene. Let the whole government, including the chief executive, be Filipino. Then, if they demonstrated capacity for democracy, grant them independence. If not, take up political training and supervision again. 204 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS We can withdraw at any time, but the real question is whether we shall assure the success of our great philanthropic experiment on which we have expended so much blood, money, and labor, or by withdrawing prematurely make it a farce and disastrous failure. The CHAIRMAN. An editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, of Friday, January 31, which is pertinent to this subject, may be placed in the record at this point. (The editorial referred to is as follows:) PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE We are unequivocally )ledged to grant independence to the P'ilippine Islands. But when? That is the nub of the question to be considered by the President and the Congress of the United States. Is is the point upon wlhich the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, now giving hearings on the queslion of independence, should concentrate its attention. We have two pledges to the Filipino p)eople. One is to grant them ultimate independence. The other is to be assured before granting it that they have a stable government. The Jones Act, passed in 1916, except for the substitution of an American Governor General as chief executive in place of an elected president, embraced a form of government with all the guarantees of justice and liberty contained in our own Constitution. In the preamble of the at't is this paragraph: "Whereas it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the l)eople of the United States to withdraw sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established there." The thing to be determined is whether a stable republican representative government has been established in the Philippines. Our obligation is not to grant independence when the political leaders of the Philippines want or demand it, in order that they may enjoy the power and spoils of complete control, but to grant it when we are assured that the welfare of the people of the Philippines will be conserved by a competent government. We have undertaken an unparalleled task in the Philippine Islands-that of constructing in the Orient, among a race of Malays, a free constitutional representative government. It took the English several centuries to do this and we, with a background of English example and experience, after about 150 years, are far from realizing our ideals. How can it be expected that. no matter how great the progress they have made in 30 years, the Filipinos. some with a smattering of Spanish civilization, some with Mohammedan civilization, others primitive savages, with the masses of the people abjectly poor, uneducated, and inarticulate, could maintain a competent, independent republican form of government? The late Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood, with long experience in the islands in military and civil service, probably understood better than any other living American the Filipinos and Philippine conditions. He had surveyed the islands in collaboration with Mr. Forbes shortly before his appointment as Governor General. In that office, which he occupied for nearly eight years, he had the difficult task of lifting the government out of the slough of bankruptcy and rehabilitating it after its disastrous experience with practically full autonomy under Governor General Harrison. In his confidential letter to the Secretary of War in 1924, expressing his deep sympathy with the desire of the Filipino people for independence, he emphatically declared that they were not ready for it. He wrote: " To grant immediate independence would be a heartless betrayal of our trust and would result in turning over the 12,000,000 people of these islands to strife and disorder in the near future. For it would result in almost immediate serious clashes between the Moros and Christian Filipinos, the former being a unit against independence and desiring the continuance of American sovereignty. It would defeat true independence, both economic and political; ruin the sugar and tobacco industries, destroy confidence in investments, with resulting wrecking of the finances of the islands, with attending idleness and disorder. It would be a serious blow to western civilization and to the Christian effort in the Far East, and render unavailing or destroy much of our work here." INDEPENDENCE FOR, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 205 And again he wrote: "No greater or more brutal injustice could be done these people than to abandon them under the guise of immediate independence when they are not ready for it; and I am convinced that such a procedure would in the end be not only destructive of Philippine hopes and aspirations but most unfortunate for those responsible for such a policy. * * * We have put our hands to the plow and this is not the time to turn back." The subsequent utterances of General Wood show that his conviction of the unpreparedness of the Philippine people for independence was strengthened up to the end of his administration in 1927. Within the three years since the Filipinos have made progress toward honest and stable government, but general conditions have not greatly changed. As a recent survey of the conditions in the islands by a representative of the Post-Dispatch showed, the economic development is exceedingly slow. The masses of the people are extremely poor, and the government is unable to obtain revenue enough to carry on its functions as a dependency of the United States. There is no common language, but 87 dialects. The people have not been unified. The Mohammedan Moros, who occupy the Sulu Archipelago and Mindanao, the second largest island, are still violently opposed to independence and to the rule of the Christian Filipinos. Every commission sent to the islands has advised against independence in the near future. The insular legislature is absolutely controlled by an oligarchy of political bosses, who, through the spoils system and the cacique system, control the votes of those who are capable of exercising civil rights. General Aguinaldo, in his message to the American people published in the Post-Dispatch, declared the insular government a mockery of democracy and favored the backward step of taking away from the legislature the power to confirm the Governor General's appointments, which is a prolific cause of conflict on account of the eagerness of the political bosses to control the spoils. If the political leaders would devote their energy and ability to the solid task of establishing sound government instead of to the struggle for power and spoils, they might soon demonstrate capacity for self-government. The Filipinos have made great progress under the direction and with the aid of Americans in all lines of advancement. They are now making progress, but have not yet reached a stage in education and experience which would justify us in deserting them. Our great experimenti n the Philippines has been magnanimous. WVe have spent millions of dollars upon it, with little return. We have not exploited the Philippines. Shall we abandon the work we have undertaken before we are sure it is finished, and probably bring disaster upon the people there and reproach upon ourselves? Surely the question should be decided upon its merits, with full knowledge of the conditions. We ought not to take the testimony of political bosses who assume to speak for the masses but are speaking for their own personal and political interests. Nor ought we to listen to the pleas of those who want us to withdraw from the Philippines so that they can levy tariffs on Philippine products, many of which we greatly need, in order that some of our producers may make a little more money, regardless of consequences to the Philippine wards. That would be a sordid reason for withdrawing prematurely from our task-unworthy of Americans. If it resulted disastrously and the Philippine people suffered immeasurable evils, we would suffer reproach and shame. We ought not to make our own honor and the welfare of 12,000,000 people the football of selfish politics. The CHAIRMAN. The following editorial from the.Manila Bulletin of January 8 will be printed in the record: THE BINGHAM PLAN The proposal of Senator Bingham for an American-Filipino commission to meet in Manila to work out specific recommendations to Congress for a settlement of the Philippine question represents the most practical and businesslike move yet made. Such procedure would bring the matter out of the clouds down to the earth, would get away from a hit-or-miss, drifting, and 'blundering policy and should result in setting a course. 206 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The fairness of the proposal for membership of the commission, the practicability of holding the conference in Manila at United States Government expense, the whole plan of procedure recommends it. The plan appears eminently fair and practical. In that respect the proposal stands significantly prominent by contract. As to the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Bingham resolution. conclusions must b}e drawn from the fact that Senator Bingham is a; admninistration man, chairman of the Insular Committee of the Senate, >.by virtue of his committee position is in charge of the Philippine hearings, and that he recently has been in conference with the Philippine mission members and Resident Commissioners. These facts warrant the assumption that his move was no spur-of-the-moment action, no personal publicity stunt, no mere political gesture. Bringing the conference to Manila should enable the delegates to go directly to their task and to proceed on a basis of first-hand information. A membership of 16, with 3 members each from the 4 chambers of the American and Philippine legislative bodies, should enable the commission to do its work thoroughly and at the same time keep it a wieldy and workable body. It is too early to speculate upon the membership of the commission, but it is not too early to say that the selection of the members. especially the four not Members of the American Congress or the Philippine Legislature, should be made on a nonpolitical basis. The selection of those four is a most important consideration in the whole plan. Until this move came to offer promise of studied and sane action the outlook has been a choice between scuttling the islands or continuing the policy of aimless drifting. To attempt to write the commission's report in advance is to add to the confusion of the situation, and there has been far too much confusion already. The urgent need now is for practical, common-sense procedure to arrive at a sane course. The recommendation of the Bingham plan is that it offers promise of precisely such procedure to open the way to precisely such a course. STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BAKER, REPRESENTING FRANKLIN BAKER CO., HOBOKEN, N. J. The CHAIRMAN. Please state for the record your name, your address, and whom you represent. Mr. BAKER. James H. Baker; Franklin Baker Co., Hoboken, N. J. We are manufacturers of desiccated coconut, both in this country and in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a plant in Pampanga? Mr. BAKER. In San Pablo. The CHAIRMAN. Is your plant in Mindanao? Mr. BAKER. We have one in Manila and two in San Pablo. I shall not attempt to discuss the political or moral phase of this issue, but will confine my remarks to an expression of purely economic facts pertaining to the coconut industry. First, just to clarify my position, I desire to state that I feel there should be no confusion between the tariff question and the independence question; that if there is just cause to give the Filipinos their independence at this time or at any time, it should be done regardless entirely of the selfish interests involved. I am prompted in making my remarks by the interests of the company I represent, but primarily I want to indicate the effect of independence on the coconut industry. The CHAIRMAN. Have you been to the Philippines yourself? Mr. BAKER. NO, sir; I have not, but various other officers of the company have been. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 207 The CHAIRMAN. How long has your company been in business? Mr. BAKER. We started in 1922 in the Philippine Islands. We have been in business in this country since 1895. The CHAIRMAN. Have you been with the company since that time? Mr. BAKER. Since 1908. We have invested in the Philippine Islands considerable funds, property, machinery, and equipment. We have erected plants with modern equipment similar to that which we have in Hoboken, and we employ there about 2,000 men and women in our plants, and, indirectly in the fields, harvesting the coconuts and husking and preparing the coconuts for shipment to various collecting stations for our plants, hundreds of others. Indirectly, too, we give employment to more people in the railroads who bring our raw material to the central plants and carry our finished product to the wharves at Manila, and to the public utilities that supply us with water and power and light, and to the box manufacturers from whom we purchase yearly about 200,000 boxes made of native wood by native labor; and other enterprises, all of which go to make up the circle of industrial growth in that country. The CHAIRMAN. About how much do you spend in the Philippines a year? Mr. BAKER. HOW much do we spend? The CHAIRMAN. What is your budget there in the purchase of material and the employment of labor? Mr. BAKER. I was just about to come to that, Senator. Last year we used 80,000,000 coconuts. It requires rather a complete organization to effect the continuous flow of 300,000 coconuts daily from the various parts of the country to these plants. It is rather different from the copra proposition, because nuts must be brought in whole and they must arrive fresh and very quickly. The desiccated coconut produced last year amounted to about two and a half million dollars, that we produced; and other manufacturers produced and imported into this country-in fact, it is all imported into this country-a similar amount. I have not seen the final figures, but I think the total is about $5,000,000; and that brings it sixth on the list of imports. It is about the same as tobacco, I believe. Desiccated coconut is manufactured not only in this country and the Philippines, but in Ceylon. Those are practically the only places, outside of a very small quantity manufactured in Canada and in the Straits Settlements. Ceylon, up until the time we and some others started these plants in the Philippine Islands, provided this country with a very considerable portion of its coconuts for desiccated coconut. To-day Ceylon supplies the rest of the world, outside of the United States, with desiccated coconut. In more recent years we are using Philippine coconut in that which is manufactured here, so that in the event of independence the Philippine Islands will come in direct competition with Ceylon. The CHAIRMAN. What is the tariff at present? Mr. BAKER. Three and a half cents per pound; and with the removal of that tariff it would undoubtedly mean the downfall of the industry in the Philippine Islands. In Ceylon the labor rate is only about one-fifth of that now enjoyed by the Filipinos. 208 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator VANDENBERG. What is it in the Philippines? Mr. BAKER. From 80 cents to $1.20. The CHAIRMAN. What is it in Ceylon? Mr. BAKER. About 15 cents a day. Senator HAWES. How do you reach the conclusion that if they had their independence it would bring that result? It would require an act of Congress here and an act of the Philippine Legislature over there, and it is not conceivable to me that we would enact a law that would destroy the industry of the islands. It would not automatically come as you suggest. The CHIAIRMAN. I do not see why it would not be automatic. If they are a foreign country, why would not our tariff laws apply to them? Senator HAWES. If we want to, we can put it on the free list. It is optional with Congress to do as it pleases. Mr. BAKER. I would be led to believe that there would be a tariff on desiccated coconut from wherever it came. The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Hawes could have his way and this commodity went on the free list, it would enable the Ceylon desiccated coconut to come in free of duty. You have just told us that the wages in the Philippines are several times higher than those in Ceylon which, in your opinion, would increase the prosperity of Ceylon at the expense of the Philippines? Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. Senator HAWES. The chairman has not quoted my position correctly. I measure the wage scale and living conditions in voting in the Senate on the tariff bill, and I give that measure of protection. That is the theory on which I have been voting so far. Certainly the chairman of the committee has gone a little bit farther than that. The CHAIRMNAN. I am sorry I misunderstood the Senator. I thought he meant that by putting desiccated coconut on the free list we would continue the benefit the Philippines receive at present, even though we granted them independence. Certainly we would not do that unless we granted a special favor to the Philippines whereby their products come in free of duty. Senator HAW.ES. I think that is a question that Congress would pass upon, either having free trade, as we have now, or putting on a duty. It is an open question for Congress to decide in the future. That is my thought on the matter. Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose the tariff situation should be developed gradually, would it not be possible for you over a period of years-10 years or 15 years-to accommodate yourself to the new situation and carry on? Mr. BAKER. I think that might be possible. Desiccated coconut is tied up very closely with copra and coconut oil in that the cost of the raw material would be affected in the Philippine Islands by the duty that might be placed on copra or coconut oil in the Philippine Islands. With a reduction in the cost of the raw material the farmer is paid less for the coconuts than he is paid to-day. With the reduction in copra which would be likely to come about through independence, I think in the course of years there could be a rehabilitation of the industry. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your position is this-and you will correct me if I am not right-that with independence and the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 209 slow process of complete tariff autonomy as portrayed in Senator Vandenberg's picture of the situation, the market for Philippine coconuts would go down and the price would go down, and the farmer in the Philippines would receive less for his coconuts, and eventually labor in the Philippines would go down in price until it met the Ceylon level, and then it could compete with Ceylon? Mr. BAKER. That is it, exactly. I have not much more to say on the subject, except that this continuous agitation for independence is very upsetting, and I think we should endeavor to determine the facts and fix once and for all upon a definite plan so that when ultimately we promise the Filipinos independence and when ultimately that independence is granted, it should be with some assurance of their continued prosperity. Senator VANDENBERG. You have thought about this matter a great deal, undoubtedly. Have you any plan to suggest under which we could proceed safely? Mr. BAKER. I do not feel qualified to answer that question, Senator. No; I have thought about it to a small extent, but I have not visited, the Philippine Islands. I do not know the Filipinos, and I would not feel qualified to answer it. Senator HAWES. You do realize, though, that we made a promise and that some time it should be fulfilled? Mr. BAKER. Yes; it should. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further? Mr. BAKER. I have nothing further. TESTIMONY OF J. F. COMINS, REPRESENTING KUMMER, COMINS & CO. (INC.), ALSO REPRESENTING HUNTER MANUFACTURING & COMMISSION CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and address to the reporter. Mr. COMINS. J. F. Comins, of Kummer, Comins & Co. (Inc.), 40 Worth Street, New York City. The CHAIRMAN. In what business is your company interested? Mr. COMINS. In cotton piece goods from America to the Philippines. The CHAIRMAN. You are exporters of cotton piece goods to the Philippines? Mr. COMINS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you export to other parts of the world as well Mr. COMINS. Not at the present time. We are exclusive exporters to the Philippines. The CHAIRMAN. How about the Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co.? Mr. COMINS. I represent them here. The CHAIRMAN. What is their business? Mr. COMINS. Their business is producing cotton piece goods in this country. They control something like eighty mills in the southern part of the country. The CHAIRMAN. Where are their mills located? 210 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. COMINs. South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and a fem others in the Southern States. The CHAIRMAN. They have no mills in New England? Mr. CoMINs. I do not think so. They are principally southerr mills. The CITAIRMIA-N. Proceed. Mr. COMINs. I can only tell you from the experience I have had in the business. I have been going to the Philippines since 1911. The CHAIRMAN. How many times? Mr. COMINs. I should say, 10 or 12 times. I used to go there every year or so, spending three months to two years at a time. I have seen the industry grow from just a couple of million dollars to the present $12,000,000 amount in the last couple of years; and the only reason we can sell cotton goods in competition with the Japanese is that we have free entry there, no duty. The fact is that in spite of the advantage which we have in the tariff on the goods, which are produced in the Southern States and here, Japan has gained a foothold to the extent that at one time they used to say, probably six or seven years ago, that their business would run $2,000,000 a year; it is running now about $5,000,000. Some of the rayon products that have been produced in Japan have grown to 60 per cent of the entire rayon consumption. You all know. I suppose, that the cotton industry in this country has had a hard time ever since 1920. Very few of the mills in this country have paid any dividends or, if they have, not sufficient to make it an attractive business. There is an overproduction in this country, approximately 10 per cent over what they can sell at a profit. In order to take that 10 per cent out of this country you have to find a foreign market for it. The Philippines are the largest market that this country has. It has grown in my own time from several million dollars, as I said before, to $12,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. Are you sure of those figures? The figures furnishlt in the little pamphlet which we have been discussing this morning, by the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, says that cotton products amount to $15,398.000. Mr. COMrINs. That may have been the boom years. I think in the last two years it has been $12,000,000 to $13,000,000. Senator YANDENBERG. What is the tariff against the Japanese? Mr. COisINS. On the average I would say it is in the neighborhood of 10 percent. The CHAIRMAN. These figures are for 1928. Mr. CMrIsNs. That is the total, probably, of all cotton goods, not American cotton goods. Senator HAwEs. In relation to cotton goods, my information is that there are only between 5,000 and 6,000 Japanese in the Philippine Islands at the present time, and between 50,000 and 60,000 Chinese, and that the Japanese are not increasing in number or in financial investments. Mr. COMINS. I know, Senator; I am not talking of the Japanese as individuals; I am talking of their exports of cotton goods from Japan to the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. You are talking about the product of the Osaka Mills? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 211 Mr. COMINS. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. The Philippines, under the control of the United States, have not developed any foreign trade; it is between the United States and the Philippines exclusively. That is an obstacle in the way of their independence and self-support. Mr. COMINS. I do not think that the Filipinos could ever weave their own cloth or spin their own yarns, if that is what you want to know; and with cheap labor conditions in Japan the goods that they compete in most forcibly are those that require the coarser construction, and that is the cloth that is produced in the Southern States of this country. You must not forget that the Philippines are a poor country; that the earning power there is small, and they must buy cheap goods; and the Japanese, who produce a similar cloth for a little less money, in spite of the fact that they pay a 10 per cent tariff, can undersell the product of the southern mills in this country. Senator HAWES. But the southern mills that you represent in this country are also selling cotton goods to 5,000,000 members of union labor in this country. Mr. COMINS. I grant you that. Senator HAwES. And they are also selling cotton goods to the farmers of the country who are protesting against this. Mr. COMINS. Do not forget that in this country we have a tariff wall against the production of Japan or China or other countries as well. Senator HAWES. With independence granted, could not Congress take the action which it desired, either to do or not to do the thing that would be best? Mr. COMINS. That is something that I can not state. My natural conclusion would be that that would be the first step, regarding it as foreign territory, and the tariff law would eventually come. That is only my conclusion. Senator HAWES. It is only an assumption? Mr. COMINS. It is an assumption; yes. Senator HAWES. Might I ask you another question. You believe that the uncertain status of the islands ought to be determined one way or the other, do you not? Mr. CoMINS. Positively. Senator HAWES. And that it is unfair both to your capital and to the Philippines to leave it as it is to-day? Mr. COMINS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you believe that if tariff autonomy were granted to the Philippines and American products were placed on the same basis as those of other nations the mills of the Orient, Japan, and perhaps also in Shanghai, would have such great advantage that it would practically destroy our market for cotton goods in the Philippines? Mr. COMINS. Practically, yes; especially in the merchandise which goes there in volume; in other words, cheap goods. The Chinese factories run about 24 hours a day. They have four or five very up-to-date mills in Shanghai that have been built, say, during the last 8 or 10 years, and they have put in American machinery, the most up-to-date machinery. 92109-30-PT 2 7 212 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMAN. They also run a 7-day week? Mr. COM-INS. Yes; and employ child labor and women. Senator VANDENBERG. We might expand our export trade in cotton goods in a good many directions if we were willing to restrictMr. Co-INs. As a matter of fact, we do more for our so-called children and proteges than we do for others; and since the Philippines are a protege of this country, we ought to give them some consideration. As a matter of fact, the way I understand it is that the balance of trade is in favor of the Philippine Islands. They sell more goods here than we sell there, so, if anything, they are " getting the breaks." The CHAIRA.N. Have you anything further to offer? Mr. COMINS. No. I am not qualified to talk about anything political. The CHAIRMAAN. You say you have been to the Philippine Islands 10 or 11 times? Mr. COMINS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You have traveled where? Mr. COMINS. I have traveled in most of the important islands, but I lived in Manila for two years at a stretch, from 1925 to 1927. The CHAIRMLPAN. On your trips to the islands, how long a time have you usually spent? Mr. COMINS. Most of the trips have been of three to four months' duration. I was there once for nine months, and this last trip I made I spent twoo years there. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you have spent four or five years there all together? Mr. CONINS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRM:AN. Do you speak Spanish? Mr. CO-INs. Fairly; not fluently. The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak any of the other languages used in the Philippines? Mr. COMINS. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. WTould you object to giving us your impressions as to the attitude taken by the people there, or what you would recommend because of your business? Mr. COMINS. By "people," do you mean the Filipinos or the Americans there? The CHAIRMAN. The people with whom you came in contact. I take for granted that the great majority of the Filipinos are in favor of independence and that the great majority of the Americans are opposed to it. Is that correct? Mr. COMINS. That is about it. The CHAIRMAN. It has been stated here, I believe-it was even implied in one of the questions this morning-that practically all Filipinos, with the exception of one or two, were in favor of immediate independence. Mr. COMINS. I would not say it is that proportion, Senator. When you say "except one or two " —I have heard a number of Filipinos who are of the opinion that independence would spell economic ruin for that country. They really do not like to express themselves so openly except when they feel that their confidence will be kept. In other words, while they would probably like to be an independent nation, they do not think the time is ripe as yet for them to stand on their own feet. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 213 Senator BROUSSARD. But the large majority is the other way? Mr. COMINS. The large majority is the other way. But we must; not forget this-and this is not with any malice on my part or criticism of the Filipino people, but in my own time of about 17 or 18; years that I have been going there I have seen a tremendous improvement in their attitude and situation. In other words, their sanitaryconditions are away above anything they used to be when I first went there, even as late as 1911. Yellow fever was prevalent; cholera was a thing that was always seen in the newspapers. You probably did not come in immediate contact with: it. In the last few years I have been going there Manila is as healthy a city and as desirable a place in which to live as any place I have ever seen. Of course, you must not forget also that a great number of the younger generation are beginning to talk English now, but not comparable with the effort that has been expended or the opportunity they have had to avail themselves of that facility. The CHAIRMAN. You are the first witness we have had as an American citizen who has spent a lot of time in the Philippines and have visited them a great many different times and stayed there more than two or three days at a time, and I wish that you would, as far as you can in fairness to yourself and your business, tell us a little more of what you have found in regard to the independent movement. The reason that I am asking about it is that I have been advocating for years the sending of a congressional commission to the islands, at least every two years, to hold hearings out there where everybody might be heard, including representatives of organizations that could afford to have their agents present. We very seldom get an individual expression of opinion from any citizen of the Philippines. We had one this morning whom we had a little difficulty in understanding; and the attitude taken by those who oppose him in furnishing information with regard to his personal career shows one of the difficulties that are to be contended with in that country. It happens that the chief opponent of my proposed legislation on the floor of the Senate is the author of a bill for immediate independence. I do not know whether one has anything to do with the other or not, but I am extremely anxious to secure the best and most adequate information that we can from first-hand sources with regard to the situation when there are so many different stories. I have been told, for instance, by some of the Americans in the Philippines who are opposed to independence, that in many of the towns the average working man who is in favor of independence believes that it will greatly increase his economic prosperity. Do you think that is true? Mr. COMINS. I think so. But as far as your suggestion with regard to sending a committee there is concerned, I think the problem is so big and means so much both to the United States and to the Filipinos, that nothing should be left undone to clarify the situation, especially by people who have first-hand knowledge of the conditions in that country. Senator VANDENBERG. Would anybody feel free to step forward in Manila and say, out loud, that he was opposed to independencet Mr. COMINS. You mean the Americans? Senator VANDENBERG. The natives. 214 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. COMINS. There may be some. I doubt it. On the other hand, I think, if you get them aside-I do not say they will say they are opposed to independence-but they will give you the reasons from an economic standpoint for the fact that they have not progressed sufficiently. Do not forget that, as I explained to you a little while ago, it is only really the first generation that has benefited by the progress that the country has made during the last 25 or 30 years, and it needs a little more. It is like wine: It may be all right for drinking, but it is not as good as it might be after it has aged. Senator BROUSSARD. They take their independence any time, just like a fellow takes wine. Mr. COMINS. I came here in the interest of the cotton-goods industry of this country. You have asked my opinion and I am trying to give it to you. The CHAIRMAN. I want you, if you can, to divorce yourself as far as possible from any personal interest, and I do not want you to answer any questions that you feel would hurt your business; but you are the first witness we have had, not a Filipino, who has had several years' experience in the islands. Mr. COMINS. I have the highest regard for the Filipinos. I have met some very brilliant men among them, but there is just this question in the back of my head: Whether a sufficient number of them have absorbed the opportunities that have been given to them; whether they have taken advantage of them sufficiently to really express an opinion so important as whether they can stand on their own feet economically or not. Senator VANDENBERG. You have seen greater progress in the last few years than in the period preceding? Mr. CoMINs. Naturally everything starts slowly and gathers momentum. Senator VANDENBERG. YOU think that another 10 years would probably show a tremendous progress? Mr. COMINS. I do not doubt it. I would say yes. Senator HAWES. Have you ever visited Cuba? Mr. COMINS. Yes. sir; I have been in Cuba. Senator HAwEs. You have noted the remarkable improvement in sanitation down there and in the conduct of business there, have you not? Mr. COMINS. Absolutely. Senator HAWES. Under practically unlimited sovereignty? Mr. COMINS. Yes. I have been in Cuba as early as 1905, and I was there the last time in 1921. There has been an immense improvement. Senator HAWES. Have you noted relatively the same improvement in the Philippine Islands? Mr. COMINS. You can not compare it with Habana. Senator HAWES. I know that; but I meant the ratio of improvement. Mr. COMINS. Hardly. I can explain it very simply by the fact that I do not know just how many thousands of Americans and other foreigners land at Habana, as it is a place for pleasure. The number of foreigners that go to the Philippines is limited practically to the world tours, where they spend 24 to 36 hours there. I think Cuba has the advantage in the close proximity to the United States. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 215 Senator HAWES. Let me see if you understand what I am getting at. Taking the situation in Cuba and in Habana at the period of the Spanish-American War and the situation in the Philippines at that period, has there not been relatively the same improvement in the Philippines as there has been in Cuba? Mr. COMINS. I would say no. Senator HAWEs. Regarding the question that the chairman asked you-and I am glad he did, because there seems to be a subtle propaganda that the Philippines are not earnest about independence, and that down in their hearts there is something that is not sincere, but when you try to find some one to express that opinion it seems to be rather difficult. Of course, your mind goes back to American history, I presume, when we were fighting for independence in this country, and we had Tories who were opposed to liberty and opposed to independence, and they left the country shortly after the Revolution. There may be some like that in the Philippines; but would the proportion be as great over there as it was in the United States? Mr. COMINS. I really do not know what it was in the United States. That was a long time ago, and while I have read American history, I can not say. Senator BROUJSSARD. How do the masses of the people of the Philippines compare with the masses in Cuba? Mr. COMINS. I really could not say, Senator, because my travels in Cuba have never lasted over 10 days, whereas in the Philippines I have spent four or five years at a time. The CHAIRMAN. How many languages are spoken in Cuba? Mr. COMINS. Only Spanish and English. The CHAIRMAN. How many languages are spoken in the Philippines? Mr. COMINS. Oh, I do not know. I have heard that there are probably 40 or 50, but I think there are only about four or five important languages. That is, the majority of people-what majority 1 can not say-speak four or five languages or patois. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is true that some of the Filipino business men are afraid to give their frank opinion in regard to independence? Mr. CO1MINS. I would not say no to that question, Senator. You see, just as soon as a man becomes a business man and has capital investments and interests he naturally becomes cautious about radical changes as well as radical expressions. At least, that is what I find. The CHAIRMAN. YOU think that they are not different from some of our own constituents? Mr. COMINS. Senator, I have traveled considerably, and I think human nature is about the same whether it is Filipino or American or Chinese or German. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you about the business interests. We have heard something about the retail trade being in the hands of the Chinese. To what extent is that true? Mr. CoMINs. With respect to the cotton goods business I would say that the distribution of cotton piece goods would be 85 to 90 per cent in the hands of the Chinese. In fact, the distribution in Manila 216 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS is all Chinese. There is, to my knowledge, one Japanese distributor, and there may be half a dozen more of what they call importers, English or German or Swiss concerns, but they are fast slipping in the distribution of cotton piece goods. At one time, when I first went there, they would distribute to Chinese. To-day the Chinese are buying direct, and as far as distribution through the islands is concerned, the smaller points, it is practically all in the hands of the Chinese. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your experience that a majority of the small merchants are Chinese? Mr. COMINS. Yes. Senator HAWES. Have you ever been to Panama? Mr. COMINS. No, sir. Senator HAwEs. I was going to say that you will find, after you cross that white strip in the zone, nearly all the stores run by Chinamen, and there are no Filipinos at all. Mr. COMINS. There are very few Filipinos in the cotton industry in the Philippines. I do not know of a solitary one. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, you may be excused. STATEMENT OF A. G. KEMPF, VICE PRESIDENT NEUSS, HESSLEIN & CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and business to the reporter. Mr. KEMPF. A. G. Kempf, vice president, Neuss, Hesslein & Co., 75-7 Worth Street, New York City. The CHAIRMaAN. What business are you in? Mr. KEMPF. Importers of cotton textiles. In five years the United States shipped to the Philippines $60,000,000 worth of cotton textiles made in this country. We handle products of Massachusetts as well as North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, and Texas. In that same period Japan shipped there $22,000,000 worth, despite the fact that we had a preferential tariff against them running from 10 to 15 per cent. We contend that if the Filipinos get their independence, if we treat them as a foreign country and that same tariff is put on American goods, most of that business will go to Japan. I believe that everyone knows more or less the chaotic conditions which we have in this country in the textile business. For the last 10 years it has not brought a return to the mills, and if we just take the textiles which we are to-day shipping to the Philippines, and throw them on this market, it will only tend to greatly depress prices. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how much in the way of textiles we are selling China? Mr. KEMPF. Practically nothing. I should say that if we are selling $800,000 worth we are doing a lot. The CHAIRMAN. China buys an enormous amount of cotton goods. Mr. KEMPF. Yes. The CHAIRMAAN. Where does she get them from? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 217 Mr. KEMPF. Japan and England. They are beginning to make some in China. Senator VANDENBERG. You do not care whether the Philippines have independence or not so long as they have free trade. That is your attitude? Mr. KEMPF. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, it is a tariff problem with you entirely? Mr. KEMPF. Yes. But, apart from that, since the Philippines ship 75 per cent of their products to this country-and there again the tariff comes in-I have conceived it economic suicide to make any arrangements other than at present unless some reciprocity in tariff or in trade relations could be more or less plainly established, because with the Philippines as an independent nation I doubt seriously even whether 20 years from now they could negotiate loans and invite capital without the backing of this Government. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever visited the Philippines? Mr. KEMPF. Yes; I was there from 1919 to 1925. I came back two or three times. The CHAIRMAN. Did you travel much in the Philippines? Mr. KEMPF. No; chiefly Manila. That is where most of our business is. The CHAIRMAN. Would you agree with the statement that a majority of the Filipinos are for independence? Mr. KEMPF. That is a pretty hard question, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind giving us what you think the attitude out there is? Mr. KEMPF. Well, I think it is a very difficult t1ing. I was never - in the Provinces, as I say, but, as I understand it, I do not think they have newspapers out there that have a circulation of, maybe, more than 30,000, any individual paper, and I can not see where they can get a real expression. I mean where there are 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 people and in those 13,000,000 there are only a million voters-if there are that many-I do not quite see where they can get down to a real expression. The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak Spanish? Mr. KEMPF. Yes. Senator HAWES. Do you believe that the present situation ought to be cleared up? Mr. KEMPF. I certainly think so, Senator. Senator HAWES. At a definite date? Mr. KEMPF. Some definite policy outlined, because in the present condition capital will not go there. I doubt whether any lending nations would lend money to the Philippine Islands as freely as they would without the United States back of them. Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose we had a 20 per cent preferential duty in the Philippines as we have in Cuba, would that do any good? Mr. KEMPF. No; I hardly think so. Senator VANDENBERG. It would not suffice? Mr. KEMPF. No; because you have extremely low labor conditions in Japan, and Japan is in close proximity to the Philippines. It can get goods there within a week or 10 days, whereas the American merchant has got to wait 40 or 50 days for a ship, and the chance he 218 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS takes on the market is so much greater with American merchants than with Japanese merchants. Senator VANDENBERG. Can you tell me offhand what the average freight rate from Manila to New York is by water? Mr. KEMPF. I think it is $20 a ton. Senator VANDENBERG. Does any of your commodity travel in boats operated by the United States Shipping Board? Mr. KEMPF. I think some, Senator. I do not know just what proportion. I never followed that end of it. We ship on a good many American steamers, many running independently. The CHAIRMAN. You ship largely by water, or do you ship across the continent? Mr. KEMPF. By water out of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Direct to the Philippines? Mr. KEMPF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Through the Panama Canal? Mr. KEMPF. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think we will be any more likely to hold the cotton goods market in the Philippines without a preferential rate than we have succeeded in doing in China? Mr. KEMPF. No, sir. It would be absolutely impossible. The Philippines are the largest export outlet the United States has for its cotton goods products. We have serious overproduction here. Our home market can not take care of the products of the mills, and to lose that present outlet would mean a further depression in the cotton business. STATEMENT OF VINCENT VANDERVOORT, SECRETARY THE WATSON MACHINE CO., PATERSON, N. J. The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name, address, and business to the reporter. Mr. VANDERVOORT. My name is Vincent Vandervoort. I am associated with the Watson Machine Co., Paterson, N. J., manufacturers of machinery. Right at the beginning I want to say that I and my associates favor Philippine independence, provided the Philippines are economically in position for independence. Frankly, based upon the information which we have and that is gathered from the reports of commissions sent over to the Philippines, and the opinion of the late General Wood, and the opinion of the Hon. Henry L. Stimson, we do not feel that the Philippines are yet in position for independence. Our opinion is further strengthened by the fact that certain Senators who were committed, evidently, to Philippine independence, still quite openly state that they feel it would be the worst thing that could happen to the Philippines at this time. I do not think it is proper in the discussion and consideration of a question as vital as this is to so many people, to bring in selfish considerations, but I think that selfish considerations have been brought in, and I might say that the Philippines in the past 10 years have been the best export market that my company has had; whereas, if independence should be granted to the islands, we have INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 219 been given pretty definitely to understand that conditions would' be a lot different in the purchase of new equipment, and that, in our opinion, seems to show a lack of confidence in such a government as would follow Philippine independence. The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any disturbance in Philippine business, so far as you know, within the last six months? Mr. VANDERVOORT. Frankly, I am not associated closely enough with Philippine business to answer your question, Senator Bingham, with any degree of accuracy. The CHAIRMAN. I had heard some rumor about it, and I wondered whether you had any definite information. Mr. VANDERVOORT. We have a rather large proposition; and when I say large, I mean it is large for a company of our size; and the whole proposition is predicated on the assumption that the United States will maintain control of the islands for a period of 20 years, which period is sufficient to let the investment pay itself off or amortize itself. Senator VANDENBBERG. You do not manufacture anything in the Philippines; you simply export to them? Mr. VANDERVOOR. We export to the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. And I understand it is your notion that in the event of independence and mutual tariff walls, you would be forced out of that market by some other industrial importation into the Philippines? Mr. VANDERVOORT. Competition would be much keener. I would not say we would be forced out by competition. Senator VANDENBERG. Where would it come from? Mr. VANDERVOORT. From England, from Germany, primarily. Senator VANDENBERG. You meet that competition in other countries? Mr. VANDERVOORT. We meet it in other countries. Senator VANDENBERG. Successfully Mr. VANDERVOORT. We are exporting into the United Kingdom and into France and Denmark, and we meet the competition simply because our equipment is something that they do not seem to have over there. The CHAIRMAN. IS it your feeling that to grant independence to the Philippines would so upset economic conditions there that you would lose your market? Mr. VANDERVOORT. That is primarily so. We would suffer to a certain extent in the competition that would follow tariff walls being created against Philippine products in this country, and similarly a tariff upon our machinery going into the Philippines. But our greatest fear would be due to the economic chaos which would follow. Senator HAWES. You believe, though, that we ought to carry out our obligation of ultimate independence? Mr. VANDERVOORT. Ultimately, yes. We committed ourselves to it, and I think that the United States should live up to everything that it commits itself to. Senator HAWES. The matter has been presented here several times that the longer we put off this decision the harder it will be on both the Filipinos and our people. I mean they adjust themselves to our 220 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS methods and we adjust ourselves to their methods, and the longer it is delayed the more difficult it will be. ir. VANDERVOORT. I will put it this way, that the lack of a definite program is chiefly to blame for that. Senator HAWES. YOU believe in a definite program? Mr. VANDERVOORT. I think that some definite program should be inaugurated. In other words, I think that if the United States Congress in this session committed itself to grant the Philippine Islands independence in 1950, as has been discussed, it would be perfectly proper, and 20 years more would make a very material difference over there. Senator BROUSSARD. You have no investment in the Philippines? Mr. VANDERVOORT. No investment whatsoever. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think anything would be gained by having a conference of Americans appointed by the President to take testimony in Manila? Mr. VANDERVOORT. Certainly nothing would be lost. Senator VANDENBERG. Except time. Mr. VANDERVOORT. I think I can say that a more accurate understanding of the situation as it exists over there would be gained. The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid that my resolution has not much chance. Have you anything further? Mr. VANDERVOORT. I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further? If not, the hearing will adjourn until Monday, February 10. There are a number of persons asking to appear at that time. The number will be rather large, and I hope that we can get through. I have been requested by members of the Philippine delegation to put into the record a cablegram from Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the Filipino Revolutionary Veterans Association, stating thatFilipino Revolutionary Veterans Association, general convention assembled, numbering 20,000 -I judge that that is the number of people who belong to the association. rather than the number in the conventionunanimously support King resolution providing concession independence within 18 months and anxiously awaiting restoration Philippine republic. Also from Juan Sumulong, reading as follows: MAINIJLA, January 1S, 1930. REPRESENTATIVE GIL. Care Bureau of Insular affairs. Washington, D. C. Please inform Senate committee that directorate Democrata Party expressing people's will unanimously passed resolution adhering unconditionally to King's independence resolution and strongly opposing Bingham's resolution. JULAN SUMIULONG, President. The CHAIRMAN. Three letters, with an inclosure, have been received from Senator Fess. As thev have a bearing on the subject under consideration they will be incorporated in the record, as follows: INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 221 THE NICOLA, STONE & MYERS CO., Cleveland, Ohio, January 25, 1930. Hon. SIMEON D. FESS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. FESS: Permit me to give you a statement of the real political situation in the Philippines. This I trust you will accept as pertinent to the present agitation in Congress for Philippine independence. It is an excerpt from a recent survey of the operation and business of the Insular Lumber Co., a New York corporation in the Philippines, by James D. Lacey & Co., of Chicago, a concern that stands very high in the esteem of the lumber manufacturers of this country. It is an expression free from any political or selfish bias, the result of a very careful investigation, and therefore I trust it will not be unwelcome. Very truly yours, CHARLES A. NICOLA. (The statement referred to in the foregoing letter follows:) [Excerpt from survey of the Insular Lumber Co,. in the Philippines, made by James D. Lacey & Co.] POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES The question of independence has been agitated in the Philippines for many years. It is in fact the perennial safety valve that can always be blown successfully by overheated politicians. It furnishes a subject for those spread-eagle speeches which apparently are occasionally necessary. That there is no real desire for independence among the nonpolitical population there can be no doubt. Even among many of those politicians in the islands who sing the song the loudest, many will express themselves privately as opposed to independence while favoring autonomy. The logic of the situation which the politicians in control recognize and take into account in their political councils is this: There are three great benefits that have come under American control, namely, sanitation, roads, and schools>. The common people recognize these benefits;, and will never give them up. The cost of these departments make up the greater part of government costs. If independence comes, immediately the government must add to its expense the cost of a diplomatic and consular organization, a navy, an army, a public health service, and the cost of a chief executive. The income of the government can not be materially increased, and therefore these new costs would have to be met by curtailing the sums spent for sanitation, roads, and schools, for these are the big items of expense. This the people would never stand for. The politicians recognize this, but to " save his face" he must keep up his agitation, and throw the burden of the failure to gain independence on Washington, never admitting, publicly, that he has been wrong. The Philippine Legislature will never permit monopoly, combinations, nor exploitation. It will always oppose any extension of foreign ownership (Americans are not considered foreign) of industry or land. American capital must develop the resources of the islands. There is corruption in public office, so also is there in older and more experienced governments. The more successful businesses in the islands do not now, and never have, paid tribute. They have ample opportunity and some pressure to do so at times, but do not find it necessary to obtain their rights. The islands are peaceful; good order is maintained, both in cities and in the Provinces. Freedom from pestilence and epidemics is noticeable. Good schools abound. English is spoken everywhere, although due to lack of American teachers, the pronunciation is of its own kind. Good roads abound, and motor-bus service operated by native companies reach all places on the roads. In the Provinces there are very few Americans or other foreigners. The villages and smaller cities are purely native, with Chinese merchants, yet these villages are relatively clean and well governed. Electric lights are to be found everywhere, and the automobile, modern houses, and comforts of civilization are coming with rapidity and with education and increased earning power. Alongside the modern, everywhere, however, is the primitive. The automobile turns out for the carabao cart. The father of the high-school boy in white linen may be a barefoot tree feller in a lumber camp. 222 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 23, 1930. Hon. SIMEON D. FESS. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR Sin: There has been introduced in the Senate by Senator King, of Utah, a bill which provides for the granting of immediate independence to the Philippines, and we wish to present to you a few thoughts concerning this contemplated action. Imports into the Philippine Islands from the United States have increased from $5,101,836 in 1908 to $83,858,068 in 1928. If by the granting of independence to the Philippine Islands we partially close our markets to their products, we naturally reduce their purchasing power and ability to absorb the products of our own country. We believe the benefits to the agricultural interests of this country through the placing of duties upon Philippine products will be far more than offset through losses to the same agricultural interest from reduction of their exports to the Philippine Islands. In 1928 we sent on the Philippine Islands: Cotton goods --—.._____________________ $15, 398, 033 Wheat flour _ _ ---- --- — __ — __ —_ --- —-_ —_ 4, 625, 128 Meat and dairy products__ ----_ --- —--- 3, 719, 784 Tobacco products ____ --- —-_____________________- 3, 005, 456 Canned fish products, etc --- —------------ 1, 693, 210 Fruits and nuts___ ------------------------- 1, 235, 269 Leather and manufactures of --- —----------- 1,158, 327 Vegetable products --- —------------------ 676, 819 Total (closely related to United States agricultural production) -------------------------- 31, 512.026 The remainder of the $83 000,000, $52,000,000, represents iron and steel, oils, fertilizers, soaps, automobiles, paper, silk, electrical goods, railway cars, paint and pigments, chemicals and other miscellaneous items. But of course all of these products other than those closely related to agriculture, give employment to thousands of working people and enable them to purchase food which comes from the farm. We need in this country to keep all of our people at work and anything that upsets established channels of exporting our products is detrimental to the stability of our labor and agricultural interests. We know you will give this bill your earnest consideration if it comes up in the Senate for action, and wished to be sure that the above facts come to your attention. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Co., H. J. DOUGLAS, Secretary. DAYTON, OHIO, Janiulary 30, 1930. Hon. SIMEON D. FEss, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: We are manufacturers on a large scale of equipment used in vegetable oil-mills, and we have furnished a very considerable portion of machinery used by several coconut-oil mills in the Philippines. To our mind, Congress wisely defeated a recent movement to have certain restrictions laid on the importation of coconut oil from the Philippine Islands to this country. Through the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, New York City, we learn that a bill has been introduced in the present session of Congress, which provides for the complete and immediate independence of the Philippine Islands. It is our conviction that the best interests of both the Filipino people. and of this country, would be served by the defeat of this bill. Aside from any unfavorable situation which would arise from changed conditions, should the bill pass, relative to tariffs, duties, imports, etc., we are of the opinion that the free Filipino nation would experience gravest difficulty in maintaining a stable government throughout its territory, and further if the authority of the United States Government were relinquished the financial and economic conditions would be impaired under the native Filipino regime. We ask your earnest consideration of the bill and trust your decision will be to vote against its passage. Yours very truly, BUCKEYE IRON & BRASS WORKS. WM. B. HUFFMAN, Secretary. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 223 The CHAIRMAN. I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Guy M. Walker, 285 Madison Avenue, New York, which, with the inclosures referred to, will be printed in the record at this point. JANUARY 21, 1930L Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: In the matter of the Philippines, I wish to hand you an item of mine quoting from President McKinley's speech declaring the Philippines to be American territory forever, and also quoting from Senator Beveridge's speech of about that time. It is important that any report you make on the Philippines should begin by stating the position of President McKinley, who was the one instrumental in bringing them under the American flag. I also inclose a reprint of an interview with a Chinese publicist on the subject of Philippine independence, in which he declares that the Philippines now have more independence than they know what to do with and that Japan and India are the ones to blame for the present propaganda and agitation in the Philippines. You can depend upon it that the Chinese knows what he is talking about. Very truly yours, GUY M. WALKER. (The inclosures referred to in the foregoing letter are as follows:) I wonder where the idea ever originated that the United States had promised independence to the Philippines from the first. Not only was no independence promised to the islands, but from the very beginning, at the time when the islands were acquired from Spain by purchase, it was affirmed by President McKinley, and on the floor of the Senate on the ratification of the treaty with Spain, that the Philippine Islands are territory belonging to. the United States and it is the intention of the United States to retain them as such. I quote from the New York Tribune, Wednesday, January 10, 1900 (p. 4), Beveridge's speech: "The Senate galleries were crowded to-day when the Senate opened in anticipation of the speech on the Philippines by Mr. Beveridge, the junior Senator from Indiana. Beveridge took as his text the resolution which he offered a few days ago: " Resolved, That the Philippine Islands are territory belonging to the United States; that it is the intention of the United States to retain them as such and to establish and maintain such governmental control as the situation may demand." Beveridge's speech was an unanswerable argument in favor of retaining control of the islands, and in July of that same year (1900) President McKinley, in his speech accepting the Republican nomination for President, affirmed the intention of the United States to hold the Philippines forever and to maintain American sovereignty throughout the islands at any cost. The mass of the people not only want American sovereignty maintained, but they want an end put to the discussion of independence. As soon as the politicos understand that there is no hope of independence in the Philippines the trouble there will end and prosperity of the islands and their people will begin. In this same speech President McKinley said: "We will fulfill in the Philippines the obligations imposed by the triumph of our arms, by the treaty of peace, by international law, by the Nation's sense of honor, and more than all by the rights, interests, and conditions of the Philip~pine people themselves. No outside influence blocks the way to peace and a stable government in the Philippines. The obstructionists are here and not elsewhere. They may postpone but they can not defeat the realization of the high purposes of this national to establish a just and generous government,, in which the inhabitants shall have the largest participation for which they are capable, but this only under the security expressed by the American flag." PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE REFLECTED IN UNITED STATES-CHINA'S MOTWIVE Recently Dr. Tehyi Hsieh, international representative of the Chinese Government, made the statement in part that, " By freeing the Philippines America would be inviting the first blow between oriental and western countries. Sixtyeight per cent of the tax paid in the islands is paid by Chinese. It is not kind 224 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS for anyone not knowing the situation to knock against the American Government, and criticize for not allowing Philippine independence." The noted Chinese orator and statesman then continued, "the Philippines have more independence, freedom, and liberty than they ever had in all of their history under Spanish rule." He blamed Japan and India for most of the Philippine independence propaganda in America and abroad. If the doctor is correct in respect to the number of Chinese taxpayers in the Philippines, and he is a man of integrity, then the angle of Chinese feeling toward American jurisdiction in the Philippines is only a reflection of that spirit toward the United States. It would appear from observation, that China to-day is the most friendly of all nations toward America. And the cause of this cordial attitude is not due to secret "gentlemen's agreements," but for the frank manner in which the United States has intervened when the interests of China were being imposed upon. China appreciates American protection in the Philippines. An appreciation like the big, shaggy-haired dog that has felt the brutal heel, and then seen it removed with the rescuer standing by, ready to intervene at any other attempt to take advantage of a big, helpless nation. A nation, however, that is rapidly becoming able to take care of itself, in financial and commercial affairs, with good government. It is to learn good government-not to invade America with its population; for all the talk of China being overpopulated is untrue; but faces are turned toward the western sun not for habitation but for inspiration and education. China wants to be inoculated in her old viens of ancient heritage with the fresh young blood of the New World. She wants business men, teachers, physicians, men who have the vision of American idealism, and will piant American-like institutions in the great Chinese Empire of yesterday, now a republic of to-day. Whatever the so-called yellow peril may mean in other countries of the Orient, it is the yellow gold of opportunity, gleaned from American friendship and help, that China seeks.- (By W. T. Wertz, in the Independent-Observer, Scottdale, Pa.). The CHAIRMAN. I have also received the following letter from the New York manager of the Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co., New York: JANUARY 22, 1930. Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, United States Senate Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Permit the writer to express to you the opinion that American interests can best be served, the mass of the Philippine people best protected from oriental aggression, and peace maintained by the United States remaining in possession of the Philippine Islands. When the mass of the Philippine people have received enlightenment through education and adopted a universal language would be the proper time to give them independence, when they have a fair chance to profit by the opportunity. It is very doubtful in the writer's mind that the Philippine people are now in a position to accept independence or complete the structure on the strong foundation American ingenuity has created. On the contrary, that foundation would be ruined with the inevitable chaos to follow. The writer's impressions have been formed from travel and contact in the field with such 100 per cent pioneering American companies as the Pacific Commercial Co., etc., who have distributed American exporting manufacturers products successfully throughout the islands, and loyally maintained the prestige we now enjoy. Yours very truly, PECK STOW & WILCOX Co., JAMES ISBISTER, NeiW York Manager. The Filipino residents of Pennsylvania telegraph as follows: PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 4, 1930. Senator BINGRAM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: We, the Filipino residents of the State of Pennsylvania, in convention in Philadelphia, on February 2, do hereby unanimously and respectfully petition Congress to give the Philippine Islands her coveted political independence, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 225 through Senator King's independence resolution or any resolutions to that effect. Respectfully yours, DR. HIGINIO MENDOZA, Chairman of Convention. Two editorials pertinent to the questions before this committee are herewith placed in the record. The one, headed " Peace, Philippine and Pacific," is from the. Manila Bulletin, and is dated January 1, 1930. The other, printed in a recent issue of the Florida TimesUnion, is entitled "The Philippines and Independence." PEACE, PHILIPPINE AND PACIFIC The new year comes with Asia politically chaotic. Conditions are the most grave of any time within recent years, with the general outlook indicative of still more serious trouble. India to-day is the chief center of interest; but Java, China, and the territory along the Sino-Russian border also are important phases of the picture of unrest, disorder, and open chaos. The Philippine Islands, in a field of disorder, are quiet, orderly, and progressive. What this year will bring to this part of the world is beyond the power of man to foretell. But it is beyond the realm of possibility that order will be restored over the whole of Asia. It is far more likelythat much worse chaos will come before the beginning of permanent order. Only a few days ago an editorial published in the New York Times and brought to the Philippines in part in cabled news dispatches pointed to the dangers of precisely the thing which has been developing in the last two or three days. That editorial, written by way of calling attention to the dangers involved in the possible withdrawal of the American flag from the Philippines, now appears almost as a premonition with history written for the fulfillment of the accurate forecast. But the editorial discussed what might be in the event of "Philippine independence within a short time," and Philippine independence has not been granted. Any student of Pacific affairs knows that the withdrawal of the American flag from the Philippines would be another element contributing to uncertainty and possibly leading to further chaos. The quiet which prevails here is a product of American protection and the American hand in the government and the development of the islands. To withdraw the American flag and the American hand would be to further unbalance the Far East and to help international disorder. On the first day of the year 1930 this fact is particularly important because an effort to'guess the future most naturally leads to speculation on developments in connection with the independence movement. The discussions of independence in Congress and on the public platforms in the United States give very little consideration to the situation which is growing constantly more acute in the Pacific. The proindependence addresses here and in the United States for the most part ignore the Philippine setting. The United States is party to the most important peace moves of this century. The United States is, interested in the security of peace. Every nation, every people, must be interested in world peace. Being interested in world peace, the United States must be interested in Pacific peace and can not ignore the facts of the situation which exists on this New Year Day. The Philippine Islands likewise must be interested. The peace of the Philippines is concerned in the peace of the Pacific. The people of the Philippines must take notice of that which has brought peace of the Philippines and maintains peace in the Philippines even in a time of surrounding storms of chaos. THE PHILLIPINES AND INDEPENDENCE Vincente Villamin, a native of the Philippines, plainly and forcefully declared, in his address delivered before the Jacksonville Open Forum, in the Temple Theater on Sunday afternoon, last, that thinking and seriously minded country 226 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS men of his do not want their country given independence at this time, preferring to remain under the Government of the United States. So very much has been said and written, in recent years, and up to the present time, by those who are in favor of granting independence to the people of the Philippines, much of what has been written and said being the mouthing of schemers and of the uninformed, that it is not only refreshing, but decidedly informative to have the subject of Philippine government intelligently and logically discussed by one who thoroughly and practically understands what he is talking about. Being a native of the Philippines, educated in the American schools established there, speaking the English language with ease and exactness, knowing by intimate personal contact of conditions as they are and as they are likely to be, Mr. Villamin presented an argument in favor of the maintenance of the Government of the United States in the Philippines, that will be most difficult to answer, and utterly impossible of refuting by those who do not know what they are talking or writing about. Mr. Villamini stated very plainly, in the beginning of his very able and informative address, that, while he did not have behind him the authority of the government, he was abundantly satisfied that he was supported in his stand, against granting immediate independence to the Philippines, " by the authority of reason and common sense." And what better authority than that of " reason and common sense?" both of which are lacking in the half-baked and often entirely ignorant arguments that are presented by those who talk and write in favor of the United States granting independence to the Philippines, and thus permitting the people of that far-off archipelago to " sink or swim," to survive or perish, after all these years of careful guidance and protection. The Jacksonville Open Forum speaker made it very plain to the audience that heard him here last Sunday, and to those who read the very full report of his address in the Florida Times-Union of Monday, that withdrawal of the United States fromi the Philippines, handing the government over the Filipinos, is fraught with great danger, not only to the people of the Philippines but to the United States itself. What is known as the Philippines is a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean 5,000 miles away from this country, but very near to Japan and China, both of which nations would like nothing better than to have dominion over the Philippines, repossession by Spain being out of the question, for the present, at least. Briefly stated, how soon after the United States withdrew from the Philippines, assuming that independence should be granted-how soon would it be before the United States would become involved in one of the most formidable and dangerous of entanglements with countries of the Orient, and, indeed, with the strongest of European nations? For it must be remembered that with China or Japan, or even a central European nation, in control of the Philippines, international complications of the most serious character would be the likely result, complications in which the United States could not help but be involved. This is a matter that has not been taken into serious consideration by those who have argued in favor of independence for the Philippines, avowedly a weak people, lacking in the resources that make for strenth as a nation. Even the Filipino politicians, according to Mr. Villamin, who previously have been vociferious in demanding independence, now are not only less vehement but actually are seeing the danger they are inviting for their country, through being cut loose from the United States, governmentally and protectively. Filipino private citizens, of whom Mr. Villamin is an outstanding example, see the danger and are strongly in favor of remaining under the Government of the United States, not only for protection but for economic and cultural reasons as well. What Mr. Villamin says well may be heeded while yet it is time to forestall unwise action. The following brief, referred to by Speaker Roxas on page 36 of the printed hearings, is incorporated in the records at the request of the Philippine delegation: BRIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE DELEGATION FOR INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The Philippine Legislature, interpreting the true sentiment of the people of the Philippine Islands, at its last session by a resolution unanimously approved created a committee who, jointly with the Philippine Resident Commissioners, are intrusted with the task of petitioning the Government and INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 227 Congress of the United States for the grant of independence at an early date. The resolution is as follows: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Creating a committee of the Legislature, composed of three Members of the Senate and three of the House of Representatives, to petition the Government and Congress of the United States for the early granting of independence to the Philippines Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives of the Philippines concurring, That a committee of the legislature be, and the same hereby is, created, which committee shall be composed of the Hon. Manuel L. Quezon, the Hon. Sergio Osmena, and the Hon. Juan Sumulong, on behalf of the Senate, and of the Hon. Manuel Roxas, the Hon. Manuel C. Briones, and the Hon. Pedro Gil, on behalf of the House of Representatives, and shall, jointly with the Resident Commissioners, petition the Government and Congress of the United States for the early granting of independence to the Philippines, and submit to them from time to time the views of the legislature on any matter concerning the Philippines under consideration by the Government at: Washington. Adopted, October 29, 1929. The Filipino people, acting through the Philippine Legislature, have charged the Philippine delegation with the duty to press once again upon the Congress. of the United States the question of Philippine independence with the sincere hope that now it may receive full consideration and merit definite settlement. The people also wish the delegation to convey their message of cordial good will and deep-seated gratitude which it is now the honor and privilege of the members and their official representatives to transmit to the people and Government of the American Republic. The United States Senate, toward the close of the special session last held, showed renewed interest in the welfare of the Philippine people and evinced a desire to take early action upon the Philippine question. The Filipino people are deeply appreciative of this determination to arrive at a proper solution of American-Filipino relations for such is, as it has always been, the earnest desire of the people of the Philippines. THE GOAL OF AMERICA'S POLICY It is not necessary at this time to present a lengthy discussion of America'spolicy toward the Philippines or of the Filipino people's desire for freedom. Documents presented by former missions sent to the United States as well as documents which exist in the archives of, this Government established the fact that independence is the goal of America's policy in the Philippines in accord with the supreme aspiration of the Filipino people. BREASONS FOR NEED OF DEFINITE SOLUTION There have been in the past strong reasons favoring the definite solution of American-Filipino relations. The altruistic motives that impelled America to wage a war of liberation against Spain, the announced desire of the American people to train the Filipinos in the art and science of self-government, the determination of America to create respect for the principle of selfdetermination, and the policy to withdraw American sovereignty over the islands and to grant their independence together with the natural desire of the Filipino people for freedom and their conviction that in freedom they can best achieve their highest self-realization are among such reasons. More recently several impelling considerations have arisen which urge more strongly than ever the necessity of definite action. The more important of these will be briefly presented. (a) Economic considerations.-After the lapse of years under an economic arrangement which has been more or less mutually beneficial, important American economic groups have seen fit to agitate the levying of duty or placing limitation upon Philippine products coming to the United States without grant of authority to the Filipino people to levy duties or place limitation upon American products sent to the islands. These interests representing the beet and cane sugar industries, the dairy industry, the fat and vegetable oil industries, and allied groups have reached the conclusion that the importation of Phillippine products to the United States is a menace to their interests. 92109-30 —PT 2 - 8 228 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The spokesmen of the Filipino people have made clear their attitude on these matters and it is unnecessary at this time to reiterate the arguments in detail. All that need be said at this juncture is that the Filipinos recognize that it is but natural for American interests to labor for the protection of their products; that certain economic interests between the two countries may conflict, and that the continuation of the present political status of he Philippines can: have no other result than to render such a conflict more acute. While the Filipino people are firm in the conviction that it would be eminently unfair and unjust to have duties imposed or limitations placed upon Philippine products as long as American sovereignty continues in the Philippines, the Filipino people would forego what tariff advantages their products now enjoy in the American market, provided the immediate independence of the Philippines is granted. The people of the islands take this position after careful deliberation. They believe that independence with its possible disadvantages is preferable to an indefinite and uncertain status with its advantages, which are transient and temporary at best. They believe that in the long run their economic interests will be better promoted under an independent status, for they would then be in a position to develop their country with the necessary degree of stability. (b) Extension of the United States coast i se shipping lawus.-Another factor which tended to disturb Philippine economic life was the proposal to extend the coastwise shipping laws of the United States to the Philippines. This was agitated from time to time in the past. It was made the subject of public hearings before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce during the last special session of Congress. Secretary Stimson, a representative of the Department of War, the two Philippine Resident Commissioners, and others presented arguments against a step which would be highly unfair, unjust, and un-American and which would be highly inimical to Philippine shipping and commerce. The records of the hearings are available to Members of Congress and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments advanced at the hearings. All that need be pointed out now is that this question accentuates the precarious situation in which Philippine shipping and commerce find themselves under the present unsettled status of the islands and that this problem is but a phase of the larger problem of Philippine freedom. (c) Immigration and labor.-There is another consideration of a rather delicate nature, namely, the recent agitation to exclude Filipinos from entering the borders of the United States. Certain city authorities of the West have gone so far as to urge Congress to extend the provisions of the exclusion act to the inhabitants of the Philippines. The legislature of one State approved a resolution to the same effect. This movement has a direct relation to the great questions of immigration and labor. While it is not believed that the American people will ever tolerate an injustice to be perpetrated upon the Philippines, at least while the American flag waves over that country, it is realized that important American interests must be protected. The Filipino people are not unmindful of the fact that it is a perfectly normal and human sentiment for the people of this country to entertain ideas of this nature. Without entering into a detailed discussion of the justice or injustice of this agitation but conscious that this is apt to gain in intensity in the future, it is respectfully submitted that this movement, comparatively recent in America life, affecting in a very vital manner the welfare and the dignity of the Filipino people is a new reason which argues strongly for a definite settlement of the Philippine question without unnecessary delay. (d) Loss through delay and utncertainty.-It is generally admitted that the unforeseen delay in the approval of the tariff lhas had an adverse effect upon American business. This adverse effect upon business was even more keenly felt in the Philippines. A people far removed from the seat of the American Government are naturally more uneasy and less certain of what the American Government is likely to decide in matters of this kind. It is not too much, therefore, to say that the Philippine people have suffered relatively more from the losses occasioned by this uncertainty than did the people of this country. And this cost of uncertainty is apt to grow with every day's delay. Since America went to the Philippines for the avowed purpose of extending development, and since the Filipino people are desirous at the earliest possible moment to achieve stability in their economic life, it is highly important that the Philippine question be settled at the earliest possible date. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 229 (e) Cultural demand. —There is another reason which should be presented as strongly as possible because it has not heretofore figured very prominently in the discussion of American-Filipino relations. It is the intimate relation which exists between the political status of the Philippines and the cultural progress of the people thereof. While it is true that the years of intimate association between America and the Philippines have brought about progress in the educational field, it is also true that, fundamentally, the determination of a definite cultural orientation is seriously affected by the uncertainty of the indefinite status of the Philippines. As is well known, the Filipinos are not and can not be citizens of the United States. If it is true and it is true that education is designed to train the youth for loyal citizenship, then it is obvious that under their present state of dependency in which the Filipino people find themselves, they are unable to shape their educational program in the manner that they could do were the islands independent. They are indeed in a veritable dilemma. Since it is not the policy of America to incorporate the Philippines as a permanent part of the United States, education in the Philippines can not and should not be administered for the purpose of training the Filipino boys and girls for American citizenship; but since the Filipinos have no free and self-governing country they are beset with the difficulty of not being able concretely to shape an educational philosophy which would make for the training of the Filipino youth for citizenship in a free self-governing Philippines. Their cultural life, therefore, demands that the Philippines be made free and independent. (f) Time to act-Moral reasons.-The time has never been so propitious for the definite settlement of this American-Philippine problem. Master minds during the period following the world war have been busily at work seeking to find a new and an enduring basis for world peace. The conscience of the world is clearly favorable toward the reign of peace in every country and throughout the world. Peoples are looking to America for leadership in ushering this new world order. There is nothing that America could do at this time that would be a greater contribution to the establishment of a new international order and to the promotion of world peace than the redemption of her plighted word with respect to the Philippines. If America would grant early independence to the Philippines, the entire world will now that America in very truth is the champion of the principles of self-determination and those principles which lie at the very root of enduring peace. The dictates of business and economics, together, with reasons of high mortality and modern statesmanship, require that the genius and talent of the people and Government of the United States be now directed toward the definite solution of American-Filipino relationship. The freeing of the Philippines without delay would be a convincing proof that America desires to spread democracy and stands for enduring peace in the world. PROGRESS AND PREPAREDNESS A brief discussion of various phases of Philippine life demonstrative of the Filipino people's progress and preparedness will now be presented. (a) Political progress and experienee.-The political preparedness of the Filipino people for an independent existence can not properly be gaged without a knowledge of their social organization during the pre-Spanish epoch. The original ancestors of the Filipinos were the sturdy, industrious, and pioneering Malayan stock. Immigrating from the Malay peninsula and neighboring regions in their boats, they brought with them as they settled in the Philippines the traditions of their family and social life. It was but natural that they should have founded homes and settlements patterned after the "barangay" system, which, next to the family life, was the social unit of Malayan life. The "barangay" was an enlarged family social organization. The early ideas of government of the inhabitants of the islands were derived from their government of the family and of this larger social group. From these ideas and ideals of democratic life, of law and order, and of social cooperation for mutual protection and social progress were evolved. When early in the sixteenth century the Spanish rulers established the local, provincial, and central governments, they built upon a foundation already developed by the native inhabitants in their pre-Spanish existence. With but slight modifications the representatives of the Spanish flag started a governmental machinery which developed with the years of the long Spanish occupa 230 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tion. From a background of governmental experience, where the old served as social and political leaders, the municipal government, with the "gobernadorcillo " or petty governor as the head, and the provincial governments, with their respective officials, ensued. During the centuries of Spanish regime history records various revolutions. Some were started for purposes of reform, others as a protest against the undue departure from the ideals and principles of government which the Filipinos loved and cherished. The most successful Philippine revolution culminated in the establishment of the short-lived Philippine Republic at Malolos, organized on the basis. of a duly adopted constitution, which was voted, decreed, and sanctioned by the representatives of the Filipino people. The delegates to that historic convention were truly representative. They came from the different parts of the archipelago. They acted not as representatives of their particular regions or provinces or districts but as agents and public servants of a new and united Philippines. They thought and acted with an eye single to the common welfare. They were nationally minded and the constitution which they framed and adopted provided for a constitutional government republican in its nature and democratic in form. Indeed the constitution was a " landmark in the history of Asiatic constitutionalism; the first oriental constitution which set forth the principle that sovereignty resided in the people." The first Philippine Republic came to a sudden and abrupt end when, as a result of the American-Spanish War, the sovereignty of the Philippines passed from Spain to the United States. Recorded in the pages of history is the valiant resistance of the Filipinos against the imposition of another sovereignty. Fighting against great odds and with the end never in doubt, the Filipinos fought the American forces as long as reason deemed prudent. They lost in that unequal struggle, it is true, but they at least succeeded in making manifest their national determination to live under a government of their own creation. The constitutional government devised was of short duration. The sovereignty of America supplanted that of Spain and for the last 30 years Philippine affairs were administered under the United States. A military government was the first to be established wherein the Americans had full control and the Filipinos were practically without a voice. With the restoration of peace, civil government was implanted, and up to 1916 the Filipinos may be said to have lived under a government of Americans assisted by the Filipinos. In August, 1916, the present organic act was approved by Congress granting greater autonomous powers to the government of the Philippine Islands. From that date to the present it may be said that the Philippine government was a government of Filipinos assisted by Americans. One of the early results of the inauguration of Filipino autonomy following The establishment of a Filipino bicameral legislature, was the approval of Act Yso. 1407, which reorganized, in a more systematic and scientific manner, the departments, bureaus, and offices of the government. Six executive departments were created corresponding to the six principal purposes which a fairly well organized government has to accomplish, to-wit: (1) The political direction of the various local administrative units, such as departments, provincinal and municipal governments, and special governments-the department of the interior. (2) The guardianship of the state over the mental development and physical welfare of the citizens-the department of public instruction. (3) The collection of the public revenues and administration of the finances and business of the government-the department of finance. (4) The enforcement of the law and maintenance of order and safe-guarding of the citizens and their rights-the department of justice. (5) The guardianship in connection with the preservation of the natural resources and the development of its sources of wealth-the department of agriculture and natural resources. (6) The carrying out of such work and services as can not be performed by private citizens, conducive to the common welfare and public prosperitythe department of commerce and communications. By this reorganization act a great step was taken toward the establishment of a Filipino responsible government. The heads of these executive departments were Filipinos except that of the department of public instruction who was an American, being vice governor, who is department secretary ex officio, appointed by the President of the United States with the consent and approval of the United States Senate. Under the regime of increased Filipino autonomy INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 23-1 the Filipinos ably met the new test to which they have been submitted. So successful were they that an American governor general officially certified that the people of the Philippine Islands succeeded in establishing a stable government. And as early as 1920 an American President in a message to Congress said: "Allow me to call your attention to the fact that the people of the Philippine Islands have succeeded in maintaining a stable government since the last action of the Congress in their behalf, and have thus fulfilled the conditions set by Congress, as precedent to the consideration of granting independence to the islands. I respectfully submit that this condition precedent having been fulfilled it is now our liberty and our duty to keep our promise to the people of those islands by granting them the independence which they so honorably covet." Unfortunately this recommendation is still awaiting action. The Filipino people, through their authorized representatives, petition anew the Government and people of the United States now to act and establish a free and independent Philippine government. (b) Maintenance of peace and order.-Peace and order throughout the Philippine archipelago under the present government have been and are maintained through the municipal police and the members of the Philippine constabulary. This task is greatly simplified by the fact that the Filipinos are a peaceful, orderly, and lawabiding people. The members of the municipal or local police force are concerned principally with the enforcement of municipal ordinances, though, of course, they are also charged with the enforcement of laws in general. The Philippine Constabulary, on the other hand, constitutes the insular police force of the islands, being supported and paid out of insular funds. At present the Philippine Constabulary is composed of 23 American and 375 Filipino officers and about 6,300 enlisted men. The advantages of having one centralized police force upon whom ultimate responsibility rests for the maintenance of public peace and order may be easily seen. Not being definitely assigned to any particular post, the men may be assigned or transferred to the Provinces, not necessarily on the basis of their population but rather on the basis of actual needs. The small number of men composing the constabulary force at present in relation to the territory which they cover and the number of people residing therein is due to the fact that the Filipino people are by nature peaceful and law-abiding. This trait the severest critics of the Philippines have been pleased to admit. The Philippine Constabulary is under the department of the interior, at the head of which is the secretary of the interior, a Filipino. (c) Administration of justice.-A judiciary, impartial and independent, is the' corner stone of any government. The judicial branch of the Philippine government has proven itself to be efficient, administering justice to rich and poor alike without fear or favor. The Philippine judiciary has the respect and confidence of the Philippine inhabitants, both foreigners and nationals. In the Philippines the courts administering justice form a well-coordinated system. It is composed of the justice of the peace courts, the courts of first instance, and the supreme court. For' each municipality there is a justice of the peace court. Justices of the peace are appointed by the Governor General with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate. No person can be appointed to this office unless he is a lawyer or has at least completed the courses of legal study in a recognized school or hag passed an examination to determine his fitness to hold such office. At present there are 865 justices of the peace in the islands and their courts have jurisdiction to try minor criminal offenses and civil cases involving limited amounts of money or property. For purposes of appeal from the justice of the peace courts and as courts of original jurisdiction for grave offenses and civil cases involving larger amounts of money or property, the islands are divided into 28 judicial distrcts, each district comprising one or more provinces. The city of Manila constitutes a district by itself. Forty-one judges are permanently distributed among these districts to preside over the courts of first instance established there. Assisting these district judges are 25 auxiliary judges who, unlike the district judges who are permanently located, may be detailed by the secretary of justice from one district to another depending on the volume of cases in the courts' dockets. These judges are appointed by the Governor General, by and with the advice 232 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and consent of the Philippine Senate. They serve during good behavior until they reach the age of 65 years. All the members of the bench to-day, except two, are Filipinos. The highest tribunal in the islands to which cases decided by the courts of first instance may be appealed is the supreme court. In reviewing cases appealed to this court the latter is empowered to review the questions of fact as well as of law involved in the case. This court is composed of nine justices, five Americans and four Filipinos, all of whom are appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. They serve during good behavior. The chief justice of this court is a Filipino. During the hist session of the Philippine Legislature a bill was passed providing for an intermediate court of appeals composed of five justices, to relieve the present supreme court of many of the cases appealed from the courts of first instance. This bill has been signed by the Governor General and is now awaiting congressional approval. The confidence reposed by the people upon their courts may be judged from the relatively small number of cases appealed from the lower courts to the highest tribunal of the land. Thus between 1920 and 1928 the lower courts disposed of 144,565 civil and criminal cases. This number does not include criminal cases in which the accused has been acquitted from which judgment no appeal is allowed. Of this number, 22,540 were appealed to the supreme court. or less than 19 per cent. Decisions from the Philippine Supreme Court may also be submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States on writs of certiorari, but appeals of this character are very few indeed. Thus between the years 1920 and 1928 only 82 cases were thus appealed to Washington, or the equivalent of one-half of 1 per cent of the total number of cases decided by the Philippine Supreme Court during the same period of time. Persons ~accused of the commission of a crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment serve their sentence in municipal, provincial, or insular prisons, depending on the duration of the sentence imposed upon them. The three large insular prisons maintained by the Philippine Government are Bilibid, tile Iwahig Penal Colony. and the San Ramnon Penal Farm. These prisons are conducted in accordance with the most modern and approved methods of prison administration and management. Every prisoner is given an opportunity to employ himself in the most useful and gainful occupation for which he is fitted. and many a convict has left these prison walls better equipped to earn a living than he was when he first entered them. (d) Populations, public health, salitation., public welfare.-During the preSpanish and early Spanish periods, sporadic attempts were made to adopt sanitary measures calculated to safeguard public health. In the sixteenth century when Legazpi was Governor of the Philippines, fairly systematic ways and means for the protection of public health were devised. A health code said to have been patterned after that of India was adopted. Under the Spanish regime, the Philippines witnessed the adoption of health laws and regulations, the establishment of some hospitals and dispensaries, and the inauguration of records of baptisms, marriages, and deaths. In these the Catholic orders played a prominent role. One of the problems that merited special attention soon after the implantat;on of American rule was the problem of public health and sanitation. The Philippine health service is one of the bureaus or offices of the department of public instruction. At the head is the director of health who has supervision and control of matters pertaining to the health service. Various offices like that of the public welfare commissioner, the bureau of education, the University of the Philippines, the Philippine General Hospital, the puericulture centers, the women's clubs, and other organizations contribute to carry ou the general health, sanitation, and public welfare program. The total number of births reported during 1928 was 422,716 which estimated in terms of a population of about 12,000,000 gives a rate of 39.12 per 1,000 as against 38.88 during 1927. The total number of deaths registered during 1928 is 218,096, which means that the average death rate is 20.18 per 1,000 inhabitants as against 20.68 during 1927. With respect to infant mortality, there was a more appreciable decrease; in 1927 the death rate was 152.54 per 1,000 births, while in 1928 it was only 150.08. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 233 The reduction of the total death rate is an indication of an improvement of general sanitation. The average annual death rate in the Philippines has been from 20 to 25 per 1,000 since American occupation, with the exception of the year 1903 during which the death rate rose due to cholera epidemic and of the years 1918 and 1919, during which the death rate rose due to smallpox, influenza, and cholera epidemics which also swept over Europe and other parts of the world as a consequence of the World War. But in 1920 the death rate was reduced to 21.08 and further reduced to 21.06 in 1921. The death rate in the Philippines during 1925 was 19.94 per 1,000. With the exception of small outbreaks of dysentery in a few Provinces, the Philippines has been free from epidemics for the last 10 years. Sporadic cases of cholera occur, but the morbidity of the disease is not severe and mortality from this cause is insignificant. While cases of typhoid fever are registered, the number of deaths is not large. A systematic campaign of vaccination against cholera, typhoid, and dysentery is constantly carried on in conjunction with the approved methods of control. More than 2,000,000 people are vaccinated every year with antivariolic vaccine. In 1928, when a few cases were reported, 2,876,313 were vaccinated, of which 57,163 were inhabitants of the city of Manila. Routine"tontrol measures are adopted and carried on in the control of measles and influenza. In the case of diphtheria, however, besides the isolation and treatment of cases, a campaign was always carried on to detect carriers of the infection. The campaign against tuberculosis is conducted under the direction of the Philippine Anti-Tuberculosis Society which, though a private organization, is under the direct supervision of the public welfare commissioner. The government sets aside an amount every year as a contribution to the expenses of the association. Advanced tuberculous patients are admitted in (1) the tuberculous pavillion of San Lazaro Hospital, (2) the Santol Sanatorium, and (3) the sanatorium in Baguio. Malarial death rate has steadily decreased. Efforts are now being exerted to effectively control beriberi. The Philippine health service and the public welfare commissioner conduct free clinics in connection with this campaign. Heretofore, the Culion Leper Colony was the place where the lepers from all over the islands were segregated and confined for treatment. In 1926, upon the recommendation of the council of hygiene, the establishment and construction of regional treatment stations was begun. There are two such stations at the present time, one in Cebu, and another in Iloilo. Besides these treatment stations, there are now 15 provincial detention camps, where lepers are detained and given antileprotic treatment while awaiting their transfer to Culion or a regional treatment station. The Philippine Legislature has already appropriated the necessary amount for the construction and maintenance of two other treatment stations, one in Mindanao and the other in Albay. Special clinics are conducted for the treatment of yaws, venereal infection,. tropical ulcers, scabies, and trachoma. The health education of the masses by means of lectures and demonstrations on health matters in public gatherings, side by side with the enforcement of sanitary laws, has not been neglected. A section of publicity and health education was created in 1927 in the Philippine health service. Infant and maternal hygiene is attended to through health centers, dispensaries, clinics, and the like. Children of school age are well taken care of. Before being admitted to school, pupils are physically examined, vaccinated, and given a health certificate. The campaign for improved sanitation is carried on in urban as well as in rural communities. Likewise the sanitation of factories and industrial establishments has been attended to and the hygienic conditions of institutions,. whether penal or otherwise, has been kept up. The water supply in the Provinces, in towns, and in rural areas is much improved through the drilling and construction of artesian wells. Public health has also improved as a result of the construction of water systems and sewage. At the end of the year 1928 there were 37 government hospitals of various types in operation in different parts of the islands. Many others are in process of construction under the terms of the law passed by the legislature authorizing the construction of a hospital in each Province. Besides the government hospitals there are several private hospitals located in different places. 234 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The Insular Psycopathic Hospital, a modern institution, was opened in December, 1928. At the beginning of 1928 the total number of public dispensaries was 1,010; at the end of the year it increased to 1,067. During the year 1928 there were 465 physicians in the employ of the Philippine health service as against 444 during the year 1927 and 2,278 nonmedical personnel as against 2,205 for the same years. (e) Education.-A proper appraisal of the cultural status of the Filipino people requires an intimate knowledge of early Philippine civilization. Before the arrival of the first Europeans, headed by Magellan, the inhabitants of those tropical islands already had a civilization distinctly their own. They had their own alphabets and system of writing. They possessed a culture akin to that of their Malayan ancestors of the Asiatic continent. It was upon this foundation of pre-Spanish culture that the educational workers during the Spanish r6gime built the system which they implanted. There is little accurate knowledge of the history of the notable educational progress achieved by the Filipinos during the period of Spanish domination. It is true that that rule had its fault and its weaknesses, yet truth requires recognition of the fact that the intellectual and spiritual life of the islanders was greatly enriched by the impact of European civilization, as exemplified by the administrators who felt keenly the need of education as a means of social reconstruction. Great credit must also be paid to those men of God who, animated by the desire to advance the frontiers of the Christian religion, not only labored to establish Christianity in the Philippines but worked hand in -hand with the governmental authorities and private entities to foster education in the Philippines. It is commonly known in the United States that as early as 1611 the royal and pontifical University of Santo Tomas was founded in Manila. When it is borne in mind that the oldest institution of superior learning in continental United States-Harvard-was founded in 1636, the founding of Santo Tomas was a very creditable achievement indeed. Soon after other colleges, such as the College of San Jose, the College of San Juan de Letran, the Ateneo de Manila, teacher-training institutions, and conciliar seminaries were established. Various secondary institutions of learning were also organized. Elementary education was not neglected, although it was not established upon a nation-wide scale until after the issuance of the famous royal educational decree of 1863. As a result of the efforts to put into effect the provisions of this decree, the Americans 30 years ago, upon landing in the Philippines, found no less than 2,160 schools in the municipalities and Provinces of the arclilpelago. The early American administrators found the Filipinos deeply devoted to education. The I-.lipino parents were found ready to make untold sacrifices for the education of their children. Education was utilized as an ilmportant agency of gaining the confidence and faith of the inhabitants in Aemrica's avowed altruistic purposes. Even under the military regime, which preceded the establishment of civil government, schools that were closed as a result of the Spanish-Anmerican War were reopened. Some of the officers and soldiers were detailed to conduct schools and classes. Later the Philippine coninission established by Act 74 the bureau of education, to which was committed the direction anid administration of the Philippine public-school system. The early American and Filipino administrators Tworked in collaboration to develop the commion school system wxhi(ch is recognized as the handmaiden of modern demlocracy. Several American telachers fired with a feeling akin to a missionary fervor waere employed to assist in laying the foundation of our present public school system. English was adopted as tlie basis of instruction. Schools were established in every nook and corner of the Philippines adopting courses patterned after those of American schools. The bureau of education, the largest bureau in the whole governmental machinery, has been greatly responsible for the enviable record of educational progress of the Filipino people during the last quarter of a century which an educational authority of international renown declared to be "unparalleled in history." The excellent work of the 7,348 public primary, intermediate, and secondary schools is supplemented by 621 private schools some of which are conducted by religious institutions and others are conducted under nonsectarian auspices. Those who are grappling with the problem of supervision and administration -of private institutions especially those conducted under the auspices of religious INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 235 orders will welcome the information that the government of the Philippine. Islands has successfully met this rather difficult question by the enactment of a private school act which prescribes among other things that they be under governmental supervision if they expect to secure government recognition. Those familiar with the history of private educational control will readily appreciate the import of such a thorough-going reform in private school administration. The Philippine Legislature throughout its history has always manifested a rather partial inclination to favor the schools. Each year the lion's share of governmental appropriation goes to the support of education. A large proportion of the finances in the public-works act each year is set aside for the construction of school buildings. About 32 per cent of the annual national budget is devoted to educational purposes. Few governments indeed, if any, are spending as large a proportion of their revenues for education as the Philippine government. This is but one more manifestation of the people's whole-hearted support of the schools and the clear desire on the part of those in authority ever and always to assist in the people's educational advancement. There are at present nearly 8,000 public and private schools in the municipalities and cities of the Philippines. The total enrollment is approximately 1,250,000. This army of boys and girls, young men, and young women, actively in quest of the benefits and blessings of education are under the direction of an administrative, supervisory, and teaching staff numbering approximately 30,000. An account of education in the islands would be incomplete without at least a reference to the higher institutions of learning. In addition to the different colleges, there are in Manila four universities. The highest institutions oflearning under the charge of the government is the University of the Philippines, founded in 1908. For the last few years the Philippine Legislature has been appropriating annually for the support of this institution nearly 12,000,000. The sum realized from tuition and matriculation fees and contributions is destined to the carrying out of a continuing building program for ths state institution of learning, which has come to be properly looked upon as the capstone of the Philippine public educational system. Besides this state university there is the University of Santo Tomas already alluded to, an institution conducted by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. There are two other universities in the capital of the. Philippines which are nonsectarian. These are the University of Manila, with an attendance of about 4,000, and the National University, with an attendance of about 6,600. There are also institutions of higher learning conducted by Protestant Christian denominations of which the Silliman Institute is a type. Students and graduates of these higher institutions of learning of the Philippines are given credit for the courses they have completed when they come to the United States and pursue their studies in the best colleges and universities. Culturally speaking the Filipino people have had a great past and a unique future. Inheritors that they are of an oriental civilization they have had the additional advantages which have come about through the impact of Latin culture and Anglo-Saxon civilization. Despite the admirable progress that has been made they are to-day confronted with the 'difficulty of not being able definitely to shape a proper educational philosophy and their proper intellectual orientation by virtue of their state of political dependency. Not being American citizens it iS not possible, with that degree of definiteness which should obtain, to frame a type of education which prepares them for a definite type of loyal citizenship. The Filipinos being forbidden by laws extant to becomeAmerican citizens, it is clear that Filipino boys and girls can not be prepared for American citizenship. Denied the status of a nation, free and independent, the Filipino youth can not be definitely prepared for citizenship in a free selfgoverning Philippines. If the people, therefore, are so desirous and insistent in their freedom, it is because of their conviction that only in freedom can they find their complete self-realization. America would make a distinct contribution to the cultural life of that island nation by an early grant of the independence which she has so solemnly promised, thus enabling the Filipino people to prosecute that educational progress which will best enable them to contribute their genius and talent to the common fund of cultural and spiritual heritage of mankind. (f) Economic conditions.-Despite many disturbing factors bearing on economic conditions as a result of the indefiniteness of the political status of the 236 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Philippines, the islands have attained a comparative degree of progress. Agricultural production, the oversea trade, not to mention the other phases of Philippine economic life, have increased. The Philippine Islands have an area of 29,629,600 hectares, 54 per cent of which, or 16,049,200 hectares, are agricultural lands, of which 23 per, cent, or 3,629,200 hectares, or about 12 per cent of the total area, were under cultivation in 1928. The six staple crops of the Philippines are rice, corn. coconuts. abaca, sugarcane, and tobacco. Production in these crops, taking only the last five years, shows steady increase, as demonstrated in the tables below. With the exception of sugar, increase in the acreage planted to each crop is notable. The value of the yield for each product shows a falling off in some years due to varying market conditions and prices. PALAY (RICE PADDY) Year Hectares Quantity, kilos Value 1924...-................. --- —--—. —. ---I 1,739,910 1,787,540, 000 P172, 957, 290 1925 -----------—. --- —. ------------------------—. - 1,725, 500 1, 963, 062,000 192,179, 270 1926 -..! ---- -- - -- - - - - -- - ------ -- - - - -! 1,755,920 2,054,504,000 204,051,110 1927- -.-....... --- —------------------ 1,807,060 1 2,147,695,000 200,970,720 1928 -. --- —-. --- —-------------------- 1,786,960 2,146,612,000 183, 293,130 CORN 1924 -. --- —---—. --- —----—. — ---- --------- 553, 230 485, 074, 000 P33, 303, 960 1925 ------------------------- -—.. --- —------- 522,380 444,957,000 30,767,250 1926 -—........... --- —---------.. --- —-- 533, 570 462, 134, 000 37,370,300 1927 - ------------------- ----------- - 561,430 490,560,000 34, 697,470 1928 ------------------------ - ----------- 519,680 429,525,000 26,047, 100 COCONUT 1924 ------ --------------------------- 460,440 1,567,629,000 0 P68,134,370 1925 --- —-— _ -- ----------- 472,050 1,584,519,000 71,847,980 1926 -. --- —-- -------------------------—.- 485, 030 1, 627, 379, 000 81,369, 370 1927, --- —---------------------------------------- 500,010 1, 800,027,000 81,985,970 1928 ------------- ---- - 515,510 1,906,804, 000 85,408,430 ABACA (MANILA HEMP) 1924 -------------------------------------------------- 485, 348 197,685,000 P43, 186, 250 1925 ----- ---------------------- -------------------- 477,110 180.488.000 64,296,240 1926 - -------------------------------------------------- 492,050 182, 037. 000 65. 724, 830 1927 -- ----------------------------- - ------ 480,730 172,776,000 59,240,800 1928 ------------------------------------------------------ 480, 730 178,768,000 54,362,440 SUGARCANE 1924 -— l- - --------- ----- - ---- - --------- I 227,190 479,988, 000 P105, 667, 180 1925 -- ---------------------------- 239,470 707, 167,000 112, 729,900 1926 ---------------------------------------— 231 8401 550,995,000 7. 401,990 1927. --- —----------—.- -- ------. ------------------- I 237, 350 695, 728, 000 113, 591,090 1928 -------------------------------------------------— i 237,000 732, 844.000 114,136, 710 TOBACCO 1924 ---------------------- ------------—.. ------ 72, 090 43,323,000 P11, 505,420 1925 ------------.. -----------— 71,630 41,902, 000 11, 591, 590 1926 ------------------ -.- -..-.. — 74, 790 45,448,000 11, 943,360 1927. --- —,2,,, 8 --- —---------------------- 83. 970 50,216, 000 13,180, 840 1928- -—...... --- —---------------... 80,480 46, 177, 000 9. 334, 770 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 237 It is important to note from the foregoing letters that during the last five years no appreciable increase in production took place. This is in the main due to the present uncertainty as to the status of the Philippines, which has discouraged the investment of capital. More recently agitation against free imports from the Philippines to the United States has rendered the uncertainty of economic conditions there more acute. The total foreign trade of the Philippines for the last five years is as follows: Year Imports Exports Total foreign trade 1924- -------------------- ------ P216, 021, 790 P270, 689, 325 P486,711,115 1925 --------------------------- 239,465,667 297,754,410 537,220,077 1926 --- — --------------------------------------- 238,597,984 273,768,639 512,36f6,623 1927 --- —------------------ 231,702,943 311,148,170 542,851,113 1928 --- -------- --- ----- ------ 269,313,796 310,109,092 579,422,888 Increase in the trade between the United States and the Philippines also during the last five years is shown in the following table: Total trade Year Imports Exports with United States 1924 --- —-------------------- P120,798,206 P194, 627, 805 P315,425, 011 1925 --- —------------------ 238,595,166 218,089,883 356,685,049 1926 -------------------------- 143,151,236 200,006,430 343,157,666 1927 --- —--------------------- 142,956,594 232,076,500 375,033,094 1928 ------------------------------------ 167,716,135 231,171,751 398,887,886 The most important exports of the Philippines are sugar, coconut oil, copra, hemp, and tobacco. The following figures show the volume of these exports and their value for the last five years: SUGAR (Centrifugal, raw, refined) ~~~~~~s ~ To all countries To the United States only Year Quantity Value Quantity Value (kilos) (kilos) alue 1924 --------------------- 357,830,318 P83,736, 173 300,867,313 P74,981,501 1925 ------------------ - 546,832,094 91,028,005 463,988,711 82,833, 682 1926 --------------------- 411,231,545. 64,459,268 341,305,885 58,324, 938 1927 ------------- -------- 553,324,007 100,591,919 508,317, 150 95,773, 973 1928 --- ------------------------------ 569,937, 628 95,085,879 534,228,520 91, 382, 465 COCONUT OIL 1924 ------------- ---- 111,628,803 P37, 622,061 110,556,972 P37, 256, 81 1 1925 --- —----------------- 104,127,687 39, 640,377 96,374,124 36,856,963 1926 ---------------------- 117,290,853 44,690,433 114,931,957 43,852,048 1927 ------------------ ---- 144,802,683 49,681, 366 141,588, 606 48, 568, 721 1928 ---------------------- 142,243,147 46,978,345 140,833,659 46,479,041 COPRA 1924 ---- -------- -------- 156,761,823 P30, 703, 764 107,527,194 P20, 996,330 1925 ---------------------- 146,708,639 31,737,405 116,158,042 25,163, 099 1926 --- ------------- -------- 174,021,287 37,173,465 125,081,079 27,632,791 1927 ------------------------- 199,318, 985 38,311,481 157,827,446 30,476,313 1928 --- —-------------- 234,416,772 45,084,682 182,586,022 35,207,664 238 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MANILA HEMP To all countries To the United States only Year Quantity Value Quantity alue (kilos) (kilos) 1924 ---- ---------------------- 177,311,618 59, 900,916 77, 219, 079 P30.534, 475 1925 --- ------------------------------------ 151,024,143 71,043,292 59, 922, 277 36, 401,298 1926. --- —------—. --- —-------------------- 154,042,766 64,284,076 61,858,700 32,602,201 1927 --- —-------------------------------------- 148, 825, 719 59,374,258 48, 546,218 24,523,951 1928 ----- -------------------------------- 174,795,520 53,187,212 51,111,676 19,054,090 TOBACCO (LEAF) 1924 ----------—. --- —------------------------ 21,683,619 P8, 068, 619 30,105 P19, 143 1925 --- — ------------—. --- —--------- 16,583,128 6,130,014 2, 872 1,824 1926- 14,338,529 5, 362, 721 4, 250 7, 639 1927 ------------ 23,588,997 7, 837, 497 71, 294 57, 795 1928 ---------------------------- ----------- I 20, 217, 486 6, 059,265 56,526 31, 792 TOBACCO (CIGARS) 1924 ------------------------- ----—. --- 218 598 P10, 809,323 175. 762 18, 839,563 1925 -------------------------------------- 252, 553 12. 083, 952 207, 280 10, 051,192 1926 --------- ------------------ --------- 247, 710 11,323,377 195, 326 9, 138,435 1927 --- ----- -------------------- 207, 579 9,304, 516 167, 300 7, 537, 831 1928 ---------- ------------------------------- 220, 884 9, 530, 279 179,570 7,711, 343 Philippine imports, especially from the United States, have increased mainly as a result of the free-trade arrangement between the two countries. Cotton and cotton manufactures, iron and steel, including their manufactures, meat and dairy products, mineral oils, automobiles and parts of are the main articles of imports. The following table shows the imports for the last four years: Articles 1925 1926 1927 1928 Cotton and its manufactures ---------- P55, 196, 619 P56, 470, 119 I P4. 085, 427 i P5, 270, 701 Iron and steel manufactures ----------------- 27, 919,939 27, 041, 751 30. 855, 229 40, 296,562 Meat and dairy products ------------------—! 11, 046, 438 12, 054, 118 12, 567, 439 13, 500, 086 Mineral oils l ----1 - ---------- 18, 432, 900 18, 556 135 16, 752, 619 19, 080, 500 Automobiles and parts of --- —------—.. 6, 794, 083 8, 107, 754 8, 427, 105 10, 253, 473 Free-trade relations between the United States and the Philippines have undoubtedly stimulated production in the Philippines as well as trade with the United States. The advantages derived by the two countries have been reciprocally beneficial. However, the present trade arrangement, while stinmulating production of raw materials to be exported to the United States, has prevented the growth of local manufacturing industries, because no protection is afforded those industries against American manufactures which, as a result of this free trade, dominate the Philippine market. This result is accentuated by the fact that Philippine manufactures containing more than 20 per cent of foreign material is denied free entry into the United States, while no such limitations exists with regard to American manufactures entering the Philippines. In other words, free trade has not produced those social and economic conditions conducive to the symmetrical development of local industries. THE SUGAR INDUSTEY AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD The total area cultivated to sugarcane in 1927, according to the Bureau of Agriculture, is 586.500 acres. This is only 6 per cent of the total area of cultivated land in the Philippines. There has been very little change in the acreage of Philippine sugar since 1895. As a matter of fact, there was a greater area devoted to sugarcane cultivation in 1921 than in any year thereafter, as may be INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 239 noted from the following data compiled from official reports of Agriculture: Philippine Bureau Area, in Production, Yield, short Year acreas i in short tons per tons acre 1918 ----------------------------------- 507,825 474,749 0.93 1919 _ --- —-- ----------—. --- —----- ----------------- 494,699 453, 349.92 1920 ---------------- --------- ----.. --- —----------- 487,790 466,917.95 1921 --------------..... --- —------------------------ 596,373 589,443.98 1922 ---------- ---------------------- 595,076 533,194.88 1923 - -------------------— 560,642 475,329.84 1924. ii... --- —-----------— 561,395 529, 096.94 1925.. --- —----- -------------- ------ - ----------- 591,740 779. 518 1.31 1926 ------------... --- —------------------------- - 572,885 607, 367 1. 04 1927 --------------.. --- —-------------------------- 586,500 766,908 1.30 Except in the case of the Mindoro Sugar Co., the lands now cultivated to sugar cane are the same lands cultivated in Spanish time. The record production made during the Spanish regime was 391,469 tons in 1895. EXPORTS Our yearly exportation of sugar during American occupation is given in the following table, compiled from the annual reports of the insular collector of customs: To all countries To the United States only Per cent Year total Per cent Quantity Value exports Quantity alue totalvalue metric tons metric tons sugar exports 1899 --- ------------ --—. 85, 827 P6, 919,420 23 21, 887 P1, 778, 910 25. 7 1900 -------------------- 65,190 4,794,288 10 2,153 186,944 3.9 1901 -------------------- 56,872 5,112,626 10 5,225 586,708 11.4 1902. --- —------—. ---... 98, 596 6, 692, 300 12 5,120 400,000 5.9 1903. --- —- -------- -- 85, 307 6, 650,468 10 29, 315 2, 271, 652 34.1 1904 -------------------- 87, 053 6,185, 504 11 25, 897 1, 741, 248 28.1 1905 -- -------------- 108,498 10,146,466 15 43,591 4,204,046 41.4 1906 -------------- ----- 129,453 9,108,184 14 11,857 844,222 9.3 1907 ----------------- 127, 917 8, 391, 342 13 10,989 807, 702 9. 6 1908 ----------------- 144, 735.11,407, 282 18 46, 706 3,932, 332 34. 5 1909 -- ------------- 129, 327 11,216,574 16 53,072 5,299,208 47.2 1910 -------—.- 121,471 14,448, 770 18 100, 700 12,428, 452 86. 0 1911 ------------------- 209,044 22,151,346 25 187,658 20,204,206. 91.2 1912 - ------- 197,075 19,600,680 18 133,878 14,010,228 71.4 1913 -------- ------- 157, 333 14,065,778 15 30,716 3,128,072 22. 2 1914- ---- - 236,498 22,119,186 23 169,530 16,483,706 74.5 1915 ------------------- 211,012 22,620,430 21 82,841 10,283,159 45.4 1916 - ------------------ 337,490 37,175,185 27 131,885 17,267,401 46.4 1917 -------------------- 205,908 24,555,357 13 62,377 10,811,518 44.0 1918 ------------------- 273,258 31,608,780 12 106,080 16,559,780 52.4 1919 ------------------ 136,060 30,415, 701 13 32,159 7, 717, 934 25. 3 1920 - ---- 180,340 99,238,520 33 123,937 78,697,869 79.3 1921 -- ------------ -- 289,876 51,037,454 29 150,478 33,752,357 66.1 1922 - ----- 362,071 51,165,110 27 244,851 40, 020,490 78..2 1923 ------------------- 271,982 69,038,246 29 230,554 60,754,301 88.0 1924 ------------------- 357,830 83,736,173 31 300,867 74,981,501 89.5 1925 ----- ----------------- 546, 832 91,028,005 30 463,988 82,833,682 90. 9 1926 - ---------------------- 411,231 64,459, 268 24 341, 305. 58,324,938 90. 5 1927 ---- - ----- --------- 553, 324 100, 591,919 32 508, 317 95, 773, 973 95. 2 1928 ---------- ---- 569, 937 95.085.879 31 534, 228 91, 382,465 96.1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LABOR CONDITIONS Generally speaking there are two classes of laborers on the sugar plantations: the permanent and the seasonal. The permanent laborers are those usually employed at the Centrals, who are generally skilled mechanics, shopmen, clerks, office help, and so forth, and those working throughout the year en the haciendas as plowmen, and subtenants known as aparceros or kasama, 240 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The seasonal laborers are those recruited during the milling season for harvesting and planting. The ordinary field laborers receive from 50 to 75 cents per day. The planters employ their own laborers who are furnished free by the planters with house and lot for their families. The planters also pay for the transportation of their laborers. INVESTMENTS The total investments in the Philippine sugar industry aggregate $190,000,000, distributed as to the character of the investments, as follows: Investment in centrals --- —- ----------------------- $82, 500, 000 Land investments --- —----------------------------- 90,000,000 Crop loans- ---------------------------------------- 12,500,000 Miscellaneous investments --- —------------------------ 5,000,000 190,000,000 The ownership of the centrals is as follows: Filipino, 50 per cent --- —------------------------— $41, 500, 000 American, 26 per cent --- —------------------------ 21,500,000 Spanish, 23 per cent --- —--------------------------- 19,000,000 Cosmopolitan, 1 per cent-500 --- —---------------------, 000 82, 500, 000 The land ownership is as follows: Filipino, 82 per cent --- —-------------------------- $73,800,000 Spanish, 11 per cent --- —--------------------------- 9,900,000 American and others, 7 per cent --- —-------------------- 6,300,000 90,000,000 The nationality of the ownership of the acreage of sugar lands in the Philippines is shown by the following table: Areas in hectares Filipino, 87 per cent --- —--------------------- ----- 174, 053 Spanish, 7 per cent --- —---------- ----------------- 14,785 American and others, 6 per cent --- —---------------------- 11, 963 200, 801 CONSUMPTION The Philippines has an annual sugar consumption of 115,731 tons, or a per capita consumption of 21.61 pounds. The Philippine sugar consumption is steadily increasing. The Philippines in 1929 furnished about 600,000 tons, or about 10 per cent of the total sugar requirements of the United States, as shown in the following table, giving the sources of sugar consumed in the United States: [In long tons of 2,240 pounds] Quantity Per cent of Country consumed total conin 1929 sumption Louisiana ---------------- 157,573 2.71 United States beet ---------------------- 856, 640 14. 74 Hawaii ----------------------------------------- 774,939 13.34 Virgin Islands --- —------------------------------------ 3,344.06 Porto Rico -------------------------------------------------------------- 383,940 6.61 Philippine Islands --- —---------------------------- 604,501 10.40 Various --- —-------------------------------------------------------------------- 762.01 Total domestic --- —------------------------------- -------------------- 2,781,699 47.87 Cuba- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3,014,594 1 51.88 Other foreign sugar. --- —------------------------------------------------------ 14,687.25 Total foreign --- —--------------- - ---- 3,029,281 52.13 Total consumption --- —------------- ------------- 5,810,980 100.00 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 241 COST OF PRODJUCTION It is difficult to ascertain the cost of sugar production in the Philippines, since there is no uniform standard of keeping accounts among the sugar companies and very few of the planters keep records of their costs. Basing, however, on the experience of the average sugar planter, the cost of production of a typical plantation in the Philippines is estimated at over 4 cents gold per pound delivered in the New York market. It is to be noted in this connection that of the 39 centrals, only eight have paid dividends for 1927 and 1928, averaging 19 per cent. The other 31 centrals have, either made no profits or incurred losses. (g) Public finance, currency, public debt.-The government of the Philippine Islands is in a sound and stable financial condition. Receipts are well in excess of expenditures and are amply sufficient to provide for all necessary activities. The government maintains a comfortable surplus to guard against possible shortages in estimated collections and also to reduce the public debt. A complete budget system has been established in relation to government appropriations. The budget is drafted by the secretary of finance and is submitted by the Governor General to the legislature after discussing same in the council of state with the leaders of the legislature. The budget for 1930, a copy of which is on file in the records of the committee, show in detail the financial operations of the Philippine government. The following is a general comparative statement of said operations: 1930, requested 1929, estimated 1928, actual Income -------------- ------------- P80,152, 690. 00 P80. 362, 690. 00 P85, 214, 508.03' Expenditures --------------------- 80,134,398.00 80, 207, 283.00 79, 626, 806.96 Excess of income over expenditures ------- ---- 18, 292.00 155, 407.00 5, 587, 701.07' Surplus, Jan. 1 -------------------------------- -------- 13,179, 267.46 35, 591, 566. 39 Surplus, Dec. 31 ----------------- ---- ---- 13,334,674.46 41,179, 267.46 Deductions - ---------------------- ------— 1 - 28, 000,000.00 Cash surplus at end of the year- ---- -------- 2 13,334, 674.46 13,179, 267. 46 1 Estimated yearly balance of outstanding appropriations, P3,500,000; net continuing assets, P16,000,000; and advances to money order fund, P6,500,000. Balance of commitment for the purchase of shares of stock of the Manila Railroad Co. for the extension of its lines to the Bicol regions,lauthorized under Act No. 3116,. P2,000,000. 2 It is recommended that this surplus of P13,334,674.46 be reserved for the following purposes: (1) to redeem during 1930 the 5Y2 per cent Manila port works bonds amounting to P12,000,000; (2) to provide for the revolving funds authorized to the amount of P5,000,000 for the construction of permanent bridges under act No. 3500. The estimated income for 1930, with indication of the sources of such income, may be summarized as follows: Revenues from taxation, 74.7 per cent - ---------- 57, 988, 570 License and business tax, 24.5 per cent ----------- 19,029, 880 Import duties, 23.4 per cent --------------- 18, 200, 000 Excise tax, 18.8 per cent --- —----------- 14, 552,160; Income tax, 4.8 per cent - ----------- — __ — 3, 700,000 Documentary tax, 1.8 per cent ------------- 1,381, 530 Tonnage dues, 0.50 per cent ------------------ 400,000 Inheritance tax, 0.38 per cent ----------------- 300, 000; Immigration tax, 0.30 per cent --- —--- ----------- 250, 000 Franchise tax, 0.22 per cent ------------------ 175, 000, Incidental revenue, 6.20 per cent - ----------------- 4,802, 700 Forest charges, 2.20 per cent -------------------- 1, 700,000 Interest on bank deposits, 1.52 per cent --- —--------- 1, 180, 000 United States internal-revenue stamps, 0.90 per cent --------- 700, 000( Fines and forfeitures, 0.84 per cent --- —----------- 650,000 Repayment of loans, 0.43 per cent_ ------------ __ 331, 300 Interest on investments, 0.21 per cent- ------------- 160, 000 Sales of public domains, 0.04 per cent ------------- 31, 400 Others, 0.06 per cent --------------------- 50, 000 Earnings and other credits, 19.1 per cent --- — ---------- 14, 861,420 Industrial operating income, 10.9 per cent --- —------- 8, 513, 400 Functional income, 4.4 per cent- ---------------- 3,393,020 Other credits, 3.8 per cent --- —---- I-_ --- —- _ 2,955, 000 242 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The proposed expenditures for 1930, with indication of purposes for which they are to be used, may be summarized as follows (see Budget for 1930, p. 26): Public education___-______________ 21, 690, 845 Public debt__- _____ ___ 9, 756, 480 Industrial operations_-,__________ 7, 61, 393 Public health_ _______-____ 6, 906, 015 Law and order- ________ _ 6, 077, 890 Roads and bridges_ --- —------------- - __3, 375, 000 Development of agriculture_______________________- 3, 346, 635 Adjudication____ --- —---------------- 3, 072, 496 Development of commerce________ --- —--------— __ 3, 050, 055 Executive direction and control__ --- —------------- 2, 414, 483 Revenue collection-2 —9__. 2,197, 259 Leislation-_____________ 2, 137, 538 Public correction_ 1, 021, 920 Other economic developments____ _ _ --- —- --- --— _ — 1, 942,959 Other minor items --- —-- --- -_ 2, 903, 430 CURRENCY The Philippines has a sound and stable currency. The circulation is about 130,000,000 pesos. The currency is based on the gold standard, and the present reserve, called the gold-standard fund is greatly in excess of the minimum required by law. The national bank is the only bank of issue. Its circulation is well below the amount of its capital and surplus and is properly and fully secured. The Bank of the Philippine Islands that had authority to issue notes under the Spanish Government still has notes in circulation, but in conformity with a law passed by the Philippine Legislature is now gradually redeeming them. The treasury silver certificates are guaranteed with a 100 per cent silver reserve in the treasury of the Philippine Islands. PUBLIC DEBT The report of the secretary of finance of the Philippine Islands for the year 1928 shows that the net bonded indebtedness of the government at the end of the year was 175,237,000 pesos for which there were accumulated sinking funds amounting to over 43,000,000 pesos. This indebtedness is below the total debt limit fixed by Congress and is easily within the capacity of the government to pay. Besides this indebtedness will be reduced during the current year by 12,000,000 pesos, already set aside by the legislature for the redemption of bonds which are redeemable at the option of the government during this year. (h) The Philippine civil service.-One of the very first laws enacted by the Philippine Commission was Act No. 5, September 19, 1900, " to provide for the establishment and maintenance of an efficient and honest civil service." Except for a few minor changes in this law, the substance of the same continues in force to-day under the present administrative code of the Philippine Islands (Act 2711). Unless specifically declared to be in the unclassified service all persons in the Philippine government are in the classified service to-day and are subject to open competitive examination as a requisite to appointment. The annual report of the director of civil service to the Governor General of the Philippine Islands for the year ended December 31, 1928, discloses the fact that of the 20,100 employees in the Philippine government and receiving compensation from the same, 16,199 persons, or 81 per cent of the total number, are in the classified service. The bulk of those in the unclassified service include the members in the commissioned and enlisted service of the Philippine Constabulary, members of the teaching force in the state university, officers and employees of the Philippine Legislature, elected officers, appointees of the Governor General, by and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate, appointees of the President of the United States or of the Secretary of War, and laborers whose rate of compensation is p720 ($360) per annum or less. Of the 20,100 employees in the civil service to-day 19,606 are Filipinos and only 494 are Americans, and practically all of these Americans are teachers in the public schools of the islands. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 243 The merit system has been adopted in the civil service. By the system of examinations held under the control of the bureau of civil service, those deserving, irrespective of family connections or social status, are drafted into the public service of the government. (i) Progress of a homogeneous people.-Such is a brief portrayal of progress in the more important phases of the Filipino people-a people with a common history and a common destiny; a people who, according to Chief Justice Taft, "are homogeneous" and possessed of "a racial solidarity"; a people who are Christian essentially, for of the 13,000,000 inhabitants only about 400,000 are Mohammedans, sometimes referred to as Moros, about 600,000 pagans, and the rest are Christians divided among Catholics who are the most numerous, Aglipayans or members of the Independent Filipino Church, and Protestant Christians. EARLY ACTION ADVANTAGEOUS Great advantages will eventually accrue from the early establishment of a Philippine republic. Such a step would be welcomed by those citizens of this country engaged in industries and activities which are believed by them to be adversely affected by a continuance of American occupation of the Philippines. It should be frankly stated that production in the islands must naturally increase and every increase will serve to intensify the fear of competition which even now is entertained by great groups and important interests in the United States. An early grant of Philippine independence, therefore, would be desirable to the inhabitants of this country itself. But this is not all. The prestige of America, not alone in the Orient but in the whole world, will be enhanced by this generous act on her part toward the Philippines. To the Filipino people the grant of independence will, in the long run, be advantageous economically, politically, and culturally. The inhabitants of those islands will be in a better position to shape their economic, political, and cultural life in a manner calculated to achieve greatest stability and progress. To the cause of world peace and international understanding the grant of Philippine freedom on the part of America will be unique, because, for the first time in the history of international and interracial relations, the independence of a people shall be won, not by resort to war but through the arts of peace and constitutional methods. THE FILIPINOS' STAND What the Filipinos most desire from the people and Government of the United States is clear and definite. It is but a reiteration of previous statements repeatedly made by the constitutional representatives of the Philippines to say that the Filipino people sincerely desire their independence, immediate and complete. On this question both the majority and the minority parties of the Philippines are united. Those who are now presenting this petition at the behest of the Filipino people represent both the majority party and the minority party. For years the platforms of both parties have been united upon this question. The desirable step immediately to be taken is for the Congress of the United States to authorize the Filipino people to hold a constitutional convention, approve a constitution, and organize the governmental machinery for a free and independent government. Such a machinery would necessitate but little change from the governmental machinery which has been in successful operation during the period of Philippine autonomy. There already exists the necessary machinery for the local and provincial governments, The Philippine Legislature, which has been operating since the enactment of the organic act approved by Congress in 1916, could well continue with little or no change as the legislative branch of the independent Philippine government to be established. With respect to the judiciary very little change would be necessary. And as far as the executive branch is concerned the departments that are now in existence could well continue, necessitating only the election of a president and a vice president. It will thus be readily seen that the transformation from the present form of government to an independent Philippine government will not entail a radical change. It will be but the logical development of a democratic and constitutional government in the Philippines. It will be a change, relatively simple, from a government of Filipinos assisted by Americans to an independent government of, by, and for the people of the Philippine Islands. 92109-30 —PT 2-9 244 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS THE.ILIPI-OS' PLEA The Filipino people most earnestly and respectfully appeal for action. Their petition is just, fair, and simple. It consists only in doing that which America in honor has promised and which the Filipinos for years have requested. Thirteen million inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are in hourly expectation that the Congress of the United 'States shall take definite action. The grant of Philippine freedom will be the full realization of an entire people's noble aspiration. It will be a glorious culmination of America's Philippine occupation. It will he the fulfillment of a great prophesy of that martyred statesman, President McKinley. When Philippine independence shall be granted, all the Filipinos will look back with gratitude to the day when God gave victory to American arms in Manila, and the whole world will know that the United States went to the Philippines with " the richest blessings of a liberating rather than a conquering nation." Respectfully submitted. MANUEL ROXAS, Speaker House of Representatives. PEDRO GIL, Minority Floor Leader, House of Representatives. PEDRO GUEVARA, Philippine Resident Commissioner. CAMILO OSIAS, Philippine Resident Commissioner. (At 3.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Monday, February 10, 1930, at 10 o'clock a. m.) x Independence for the Philippine Islands HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 204 A BILL PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS S. 3108 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND TO FORM A FREE AND INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. J. Res. 113 JOINT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO CALL A CONFERENCE ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION S. Res. 199 RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF TARIFF AUTONOMY FOR THE PHILIPPINES IN CONNECTION WITH HEARINGS RELATIVE TO THEIR INDEPENDENCE S. 3379 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND FORM A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE SAME Part 3 FEBRUARY 10, 1930 Printed for the use of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92109 WASHINGTON: 1930 COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION HIRAM BINGHAM, Connecticut, Chairman HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada. ARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota. EDWIN S. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. JESSE H. METCALF, Rhode Island. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland. GUY D. GOFF, West Virginia. HARRY B. HAWES, Missouri. BRONSON M. CUTTING, New Mexico. HENRY M. BARRY, Clerk II _hr - ( " CONTENTS Statement ofFelipe Mabilangan, Syracuse, N. Y --- —- ------------------- Dr. Hilario Camino Moncado, president Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), Los Angeles, Calif -__ --- —------------ J. S. McDaniel, chairman Cordage Institute, New York_________ John H. Pardee, president Philippine Railway, New York ---_______ D. F. Webster, vice president of the Pacific Commercial Co., New York, N. Y-_ --- —--------------------- III Page313 328 292 282 251,..... I INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment of February 3, 1930, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate Commerce, the Capitol, at 10 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Johnson, Vandenberg, Metcalf, Cutting, Broussard, and Hawes. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Is Mr. J. H. Pardee here (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Mr. J. S. McDaniel (No response.) Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I make the suggestion that the opinion rendered by the legislative council with respect to the constitutional facts of this problem be printed in the record so that it will all be in one place in the record The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that will be done. (The opinion referred to is as follows:) MEMORANDUM IN RE POWER OF CONGRESS TO GRANT INDEPNENDE NC TOHE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (By Charles F. Boots, office of the legislative counsel, January 13, 1930) This memorandum is submitted in response to your request of January 10, 1930, for legal materials bearing upon the constitutional power of Congress to grant independence to the Philippines. 1. POWER TO ALIENATE TERRITORY It is well settled that the Government of the United States has the power to acquire territory. As early as 1828 Chief Justice Marshall declared " the Constitution confers absolutely on the Government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." (American Ins. Co. v. Canter (1828), 1 Pet. 511, 541.) The power of the United States to acquire Porto Rico and the Philippines from Spain was not questioned in the insular cases. (See De Lima v. Bidwell (1901), 182 U. S. 1.) And in Wilson v. Shaw (1907) (204 U. S. 24, 32) the court said, speaking of the power of the United States to acquire sovereignty over the Canal Zone: "It is too late in the history of the United States to question the right of acquiring territory by treaty." An examination of the cases discloses that the power of the National Government to acquire territory has been variously based upon the war power, the treaty-making power, and the power resulting as an attribute of sovereignty possessed by every independent nation. It would seem that, if in the exercise of its sovereign powers the United States may acquire additional territory, the same sovereignty would include power to dispose of territory. It is true that there is no express constitutional 245 246 IN2DEPENDENCE FOBR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS provision granting power to the United States, or any branch of the Government thereof, to alienate any portion of its territory, unless it be the power given to the Congress under Article IV, section 3, paragraph 2, "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States," which will be later considered. But neither is there any express provision permitting of the acquisition of territory; and yet since the beginning of the Government the power has been recognized by all branches of the Government of the United States, it has been exercised on numerous occasions, and has been several times sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court. It is also true that no territory indisputably under the American flag has ever been alienated, although in the exercise of its treaty-naking power the United States has, on numerous occasions, made boundary adjustments with foreign nations. However, these treaties may scarcely be designated as treaties of cession, but rather of recognition, although it has been declared that any case involving an adjustment of a boundary must include a cession of supposed rights to territory by one or the other party. Some of the treaties involving adjustments of boundaries have even used the term "cede." (See Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, 2d ed., p. 171, note 74.) For a discussion of the general power, see Crandall on Treaties, section 99. where the author upholds the power of the United States to cede territory. Judge Malcolm's work, section 57, contains a full discussion of the legal phases of the question of the right of the United States to cede the Philippine Islands to a foreign power and vigorously upholds that right. The author says: " If sovereignty permits the United States to secure additional domain, conversely the same correlative right of sovereignty must permit the United States to dispose of its territory. If the President can initiate a treaty to annex territory and the Senate can approve the treaty, obviously the President and the Senate can by the samle means cede territory. While acquisition is naturally more pleasing to imperialistic patriotism than cession, the latter is legally just as constitutional. The higher law of national expediency, benefits, or necessity must govern the dealings of one country wth another. As the United States Supreme Court has said: 'It certainly was intended to confer upon the Government the power of self-preservation.' What other great nations have donce the United States can do." (Malcolm, op. cit., p. 170.) The most exhausstve argument that has been found against the power to alienate territory is contained in an article by Daniel I. Willianis in the Virginia Law Review for November. 1925. and reprinted in the Congressioiial Record of April 16. 1926 (67 Congressional Record, 7585). The author denies the power of the United States by anuy of its agencies to alienate territory on-e acquired ly- the United States except by constitutional amendmlent, although the article is directed particularly to the power of Congress to alienate territory. The conclusion of the author that the right to alleiate sovereignty must conie from the peopie in thie forlm of a constitutional imendment would apply equally to alienation of telritory by treaty or by any other means. Of thisi discussion Professor Willoughby says: ' he best Largumuenit with which the writer is familiar in denial of the right of Congress to fgrant independence to the Philippines or to other areas and their inhabitants similarly circumstanced is that of Daniel R. Willams In an article contributed to the Virginia Law Review. "The fact thaft the Philippine Islands have not been by Congress 'incorporated' into the United States is without constitutional significance, for it is incontestible that by the treaty with Spain they were brought under thl: sovereignty of the United States. That Congress has not been expressly given the power to alienate territory which has come or been brought under Almerican sovereignty is equally certain. Certain also is it that there has been no judicial pronouncement that Congress has this constitutional power, for there has been no exercise by Congress of such a power, and therefore no opportunity for its judicial examination, even were it possible to raise the point in such a manner as to enable or to compel the courts to pass upon it. Mr. Daniels is, however, able to adduce certain judicial statements which possibly imply that Congress has not the power in question, and he as well as Mr. Fairchild are able to adduce certain statements of public men at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. and especially in the Virginia ratifying convention, that the Constitution was not to be construed as granting the power. It scarcely needs be said, however, that these judicial dicta are obiter and that statements made by particular individuals in the State convention of a particular State at the time the Constitution was adopted have no controlling authority. Mr. Williams, however, lays emphasis upon the proposition that in the United States the ultimate sover INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 247 eignty is in the people, and that when territory is acquired by the United States it is held in trust for their benefit; and, therefore, that they should not be deprived of that right except by an expressed consent thereto given by them to Congress. Here, again, it is to be observed that these dicta are obiter, even if they can be held to state a legal rather than a moral obligation or disassociated from the facts of the cases in which they were stated or from the particular circumstances surrounding the particular territories which the courts had in mind when making them." (Willoughby on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 1, 2d ed., pp. 422, 423.) Willoughby (op. cit., sec. 317) has a lengthy discussion of the power of the United States to alienate territory under the treaty-making power. The author there considers the statements made by the Supreme Court on the question, together with other authorities, and makes the following broad conclusion: "In accordance with the principles already laid down in this chapter, the author of this treatise is of the opinion that the United States has, through its treaty-making organ, the constitutional power, in cases of necessity, to alienate a portion of, or the entire territory of a State or States. The same reasoning which supports the power of the United States, as a sovereign power in international relations, to annex territories, is sufficient to sustain its power to part with them, even should the area so parted with be a part of one of the States or include one or more of them" (p. 576). See also, the remarks of Senator Walsh of Montana, made at the time the Isle of Pines treaty was before the Senate (March 13, 1925, 67 Congressional Record, 194ff). Senator Walsh argues in support of the power of the United States to surrender territory by treaty. Compare the remarks of Senator Reed of Missouri (March 13, 1925, 67 Congressional Record, 199), questioning the right of the Senate and the Executive by treaty to alienate territory of the United States, and suggesting that in the alienation of territory Congress must act. As has been suggested, decisive judicial authority upon the power of the United States to alienate territory is lacking. In Downes v. Bidwell (1901) (182 U. S. 244), Mr. Justice White argued that the United States could not by treaty sell or trade away any portion of territory, whether within a State or Territory, which has been " incorporated" into the United States. The argument applies only to territory which is an integral part of the United States and would not be applicable to the Philippine Islands, which have been held not to be incorporated territory. Also, it is to be noted that Mr. Justice Brown in De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) (182 U. S. 1, 197), one of the same series of cases, remarked that when territory is "once acquired by treaty it belongs to the United States, and is subject to the disposition of Congress," and Mr. Justice White later on in the opinion referred to above admitted that in case of a calamitous war or the necessity of the settlement of boundaries " it may be that citizens of the United States may be expatriated by the action of the treay-making power, implied or expressly ratified by Congress." In Lattimer v. Poteet (1840) (14 Pet. 4), the Supreme Court upheld a treaty of the United States with an Indian tribe whereby, in the course of a boundary adjustment, there was ceded to the Indians an area claimed by a State as its own. In Kent's Commentaries, volume 1, page 167, note f, that eminent authority says: " The better opinion would seem to, be that such a power of cession of the territory of a State without its consent does reside exclusively in the treatymaking power, under the Constitution of the United States, yet sound discretion would forbid the exercise of it without the consent of the local government who are interested, except in cases of great necessity, in which the consent might be presumed." Mr. Justice Story, in answer to a letter addressed to him by Edward Everett, the Governor of Massachusetts, asking the opinion of Mr. Justice Story concerning a resolution of the Massachusetts Legislature presented to Everett for his signature, in which it was declared that no power delegated by the Constitution to the United States authorized the Government to cede to a foreign nation any territory lying within the limits of a State of the Union, replied that he could not admit it to be universally true that the Constitution of the Unitcd States did not authorize the Government to cede to a foreign nation territory within the limits of the State, since such a cession might, for example, be indispensable to purchase peace, or might be of a nature calculated for the safety of both nations or be an equivalent for a like cession on the other side. (Willoughby, op. cit., p. 248 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 575.) Story also declared that Chief Justice Marshall was of the opinion that the treaty-making power did extend to at least some cases of cession of territory. It is to be noted that many of these authorities suggest that territory situated within a State may be ceded, even without the consent of the State. This, of course, would seem to strengthen the case of those who support the power to alienate the Philippine Islands, which are not within the boundaries of any State and are not even an integral part of the United States. Reference has heretofore been made to the provision of the Constitution authorizing the Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Williams, in his article cited above, takes the position that this provision of the Constitution contains no authority fo'r the assertion of any power to alienate " sovereignty " as distinguished from " ownership," and cites numerous dicta of the Supreme Court in support of his contention. Of this argument, Willoughby says: "The argument which Mr. Williams makes that the power to alienate is not contained in the grant to Congress of the power 'to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States wvould be a strong one if the interpretation of this provision were approached as an original proposition. It is the opinion of the author of this treatise that a proper interpretation of this constitutional provision would restrict its application to the proprietary rights of the United States in the property within territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as well as in the States of the Union, but the fact is that the Supreme Court, as will be later shown, has repeatedly and definitely committed itself to the proposition that this grant relates to political or jurisdictional r'ghts of the National Government- as well as to proprietary rights. It would seem. then, that. giving to the provision this political as di-tin:guished from merely!roprietary signification, it would follow that the power granted to Congress to ' dispose' of territory belonging to the United States implies not merely a rightto sell the lands or other property of the Un ted States, but to release the political sovereignty of the United States over such territories by sale or cession to another power or simply by withdrawing its own sovereignty and thus recognizing the independence and self-sovereignty of such territory." (Op. cit. 423.) 2. POWVERI TO GRANT INDEPEN TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The foregoing citation of authorities has been principally upon the question of the cession of territory, meaning thereby cession to a foreign power. Obviously, the question of Philippine independence can not be directly settled on any theory of cession, for until independence becomes a fact there would be no sovereignty with vhich the United States could deal under the treatymaking power. Howev,:, if it be true that the United States has the right to cede to a foreign po ver territory once belonging to the United States it could scarcely be questio,d that the United States could release its sovereignty and recognize a part of,lis territory as a free and independent government. On this point, Judge Malcolm asks: "If other soverign powers can recognize former portions of their territory as independent, because forced to do so, why can not the rnited States, as a power of equal rank, recognize the Philippines as a republic. because she wishes to do so?" (Op. cit., p. 181.) And Willoughby, concluding his discussion of the power of the Uni~-1 States to alienate its territory, says: "The constitutional right of the United States to bring what has formerly been alien territory under its own sovereignty by other processes than through the exercise of the treaty-making power, or as incidental to the waging of war, being established, it may be assumed that could the question come before it in such a manner as to be judicial, that is, nonpolitical in character, the Supreme Court, by a parity of reasoning, would hold that Congress has the power to release territory from beneath the sovereignty of the United Statesalienation being the correlative of acquisition. "Leaving aside, however, the foregoing observations which have been in the nature of a rebuttal of the arguments of those who would deny to Congress the right to release sovereignty over territory that has once come under the sovereignty of the United States, and approaching the matter from the affirmative side, it seems clear to the author of this treatise that the constitutional right in question can be sustained as a right 'resulting' from the fact that, viewed internationally, the United States is a sovereign power, and, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 249 except as expressly limited by the Constitution, is to be viewed as possessing within the field of international relations all those powers which, by general international usage, sovereign and independent States are conceded to possess, and that, among such conceded powers is that of parting with, as well as acquiring, political jurisdiction over territory. The propriety of resorting to this attribute of national sovereignty as a source of constitutional authority has been earlier discussed, and further applications of the doctrine appear in connection with the discussion of specific matters, as, for example, the exclusion and expulsion of aliens, the penalizing of the counterfeiting in the United States of the public securities of foreign States, etc., and it will be sufficient here again to quote the language of the Supreme Court in the case of Mackenzie v. Hare in which it was held that Congress might, upon reasonable grounds, deprive American citizens of their status as such. The court said: 'As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern the relations and intercourse with other countries. We should hesitate long before limiting or embarrassing such powers.'" (Op. cit., pp. 423-424.) Speaking directly to this question, Judge Malcolm makes the following observations: "When we endeavor to resolve the question by means of authority, we gain little additional light. As before remarked, Mr. Justice Taney expressed the view in the Dred Scott case that territory is acquired to become a State of the Union, which, of course, conversely means that territory is not acquired in order to be relinquished for independent existence. One should, however, recollect in connection with this case that it went upon the assumption that the right to acquire territory is derived from the power to admit States that this is the only case in which this proposition has ever been accepted, and that it is counter to the opinions of Marshall and a long list of jurists, and has since been judicially ignored. Remembering all this, the language of Taney, whether dictum or not, loses its force. The most authoritative expression of judicial opinion on the other side is that of Mr. Justice Brown in the Insular cases, where he suggests that the Philippines and Porto Rico 'might be permitted to form independent governments.' An Assistant Attorney General of the United States, at the request of the Committee on *Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, rendered an opinion holding that the Philippines could be made independent." (Malcolm, op. cit., pp. 176, 177.) For a discussion of both sides of the question of the power of Congress to constitutionally grant independence to the Filipinos, see 179 North American Review (1904), page 282. i 3. METHOD OF GRANTING INDEPENDENCE TO PHtILTPINE ISLANDS Admitting that the United States may withdraw is, sovereignty from the Philippine Islands, there remains the question as to ht-' this withdrawal shall be accomplished. There is very little authority on this point. Judge Malcolm inquires "And if Congress, or its agent, the Presidelt, shall recognize the Philippines to be a sovereignty, how long on such a political question would a litigant have standing in court?" The reference to the President as the agency of Congress doubtless means the President acting pursuant to legislative authority, and thus construed the statement apparently suggests a legislative act as the proper means. Moreover, Mr. Justice Brown, in De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) (182 U. S. 197), remarked that when territory is "once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States and is subject to the disposition of Congress." Unquestionably, if the granting of independence is based upon the power to dispose of and make rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States it will require legislation by the Congress, since that power is granted to the Congress under the Constitution. Professor Willoughby, concluding his discussion on the principal question, observes: "It is to be repeated that the foregoing discussion has had exclusive relation to the alienation of American territory by other processes than the exercise of the treaty-making power. That, through an exercise of the treaty power, American territory may be alienated is abundantly clear, as will be later shown. Of course, however, this power could not be availed of if the United States should decide to grant full independence to the Philippine Islands 250 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS or to any other area, for, in such case, not until such independence became a fact would there be any other sovereignty with which the United States could deal by means of a treaty. In other words, the United States could, by a treaty, recognize the independence of the islands, but it could hardly be held, as a logical proposition, that the independence owed its existence to the treaty." (Op. cit., p. 425.) And as bearing directly upon the method of disposition, Willoughby says: " Should territory be alienated to a foreign power, it would seem that this would have to be doine by treaty. Should, however, the alienation be by the way of granting independence to a particular territory, as, for example, Porto Rico or the Philippine Islands, this could be done by joint resolution." (Op. cit., p. 576.) It would seem to be only logical that, since the treaty-making power may not eb resorted to, owing to the lack of an independent sovereignty with which to deal, legislative action would be the only solution. It would scarcely be contended that a concurrent resolution of the Congress, requiring no executive approval, would suffice. Nor would it seem appropriate or competent for the Executive of his own volition to release the sovereignty of the United States, although it is to be noted, conversely, that the sovereignty of the United States over the eastern Samoan Islands apparently rested upon the acceptance by the President of the cession made by the chiefs of those islands, until the Congress enacted legislation during the Seventieth Congress accepting, ratifying, and confirming the cessions. Supplementing the little authority there is bearing upon the question, some support for the competency of release of sovereignty by legislative action may be found in the precedents for thus annexing territory, as in the case of Hawaii and Texas, and, more recently, of eastern Samoa. The annexation of Texas by joint resolution may be justified under the power granted to Congress to admit new States into the Union, but this, of course, could furnish no precedent for Hawaii. Of the Texas and Hawaii cases Professor Willoughby has this to say: "Though it thus appears that territory may be annexed without the consent of the people, it has not yet been shown that, in fact, a legislative act is constitutionally adequate for the purpose. It has been shown that the admission of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress directly into the Union as a State could be justified as an exercise of the power given to Congress by the Constitution to admit new States into the Union, and did not, therefore, establish a precedent for the annexation of Hawaii. To the author's mind the annexation of Hawaii by legislative act was constitutionally justified upon the same ground that extension of American sovereignty by statute over the Guano Islands was justified, namely, as an exercise of a right springing from the fact that, in the absence of express constitutional prohibition, the United States as a sovereign nation has all the power that any sovereign nation is recognized by international law and practice to have with reference to such political questions as the annexation of territory." "The question as to the constitutionality of the annexation of Texas or of Hawaii has never been directly raised and passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States. In fact, however, the court has, of course, impliedly recognized the validity of the annexation, both of Texas and Hawaii, in every case in which it has enforced the laws of, or Federal laws relating to, these territories. That the point has not been directly raised is due to the principle uniformly declared by the court when the point has, in other instances, been raised that the territorial limits of sovereignty is a question the decision of which by the political branches of the Government is absolutely binding upon its judiciary" (pp. 429-430). In conformity with your request this memorandum expresses no opinion upon! the constitutional questions involved, but merely presents pertinent legal materials from the authorities; and in the latter respect does not purport to be exhaustive. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES F. BooTs, Assistant Counsel, Office of the Legislative Counsel. Hon. WILLIAM H. KING, United States Senate. JANUARY 13, 1930. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. D. F. Webster. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 251 STATEMENT OF D. F. WEBSTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO., NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the reporter, please. Mr. WEBSTER. My name is D. F. Webster and I am vice president of the Pacific Commercial Co. and reside in New York. Our company is one of the oldest and largest American-owned companies doing business in the Philippine Islands, having been established over 30 years ago. Our business consists almost excluively of the distribution in the Philippine Islands of the products of American manufacturers and producers. I desire to submit a brief that has been prepared by Mr. H. B. Pond, president of the Pacific Commercial Co., who resides in Manila, the purpose of which is outlined in the second paragraph of the brief. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any interests in this country? Mr. WEBSTER. We have an office in San Francisco and one in Seattle. The CHAIRMAN. What is the general nature of the business of your company? Mr. WEBSTER. We are principally distributors of American merchandise. About 99 per cent of our business is the distribution of products and manufactures of American producers and manufacturers. The CHAIRMAN. Are you limited to any one class of products? Mr. WERSTER. Oh, no. We handle practically everything that is produced in the United States in certain lines. We are the agents for General Motors and agent for the California Packers Corporation. We handle all kinds of lines. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have more than one office in the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. We have offices in Manila, Cebu, Iloilo, and Zamboanga. The CHAIRMAN. Have you visited the islands yourself? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. I was out there, first, in 1910 and 1911; then again in 1920 and 1921, and then on a short visit in 1924. The CHAIRMAN. Do you care to read your brief now? Mr. WEBSTER. The brief is rather long. Senator JOHNSON. Beyond the mere matters that are set forth in the brief, is there anything that you desire to present? Mr. WEBSTER. I can read the purpose of the brief. I will read the first part of it, if you like. Bills are pending beforea the Congress of the United States to grant immediate independence to the Philippine Islands. The advocates of these bills frankly state that their purpose is to impose duties on the products of the Philippine Islands when imported into the United States. Attempts were made to do this during consideration of the Hawlev-Smoot tariff bill. The sense of Congress was, however, that so long as the United States exercises sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and the products of the United States are admitted free of duty into the Philippine Islands, it is both inconsistent and morally unsound to tax the products of the Philip 252 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS pine Islands entering the United States. It is, therefore, now proposed that the United States relinquish sovereignty over the Philippine Islands that the products of the Philippine Islands may be taxed. The purpose of this proposal is purely selfish, it being contended that the free entry into the United States of certain Philippine products is harmful to certain American producers. The adoption of this proposal for the purpose so frankly avowed, would mean a complete abandonment of the policy of the United States toward the Philippine Islands since they were ceded to the United States by Spain in 1899. The purpose of this brief is to determine: First. Whether the free entry of Philippine products into the United States is harmful to t he interests of the American people. and in particular of the American farmer. on whose behalf advocates of Philippine independence profess to speak. Second. The effect of Philippine independence on the trade of the United States with the Philippine Islands; and Third. The effect on the Phil)ppine Islands and on the people thereof of an early grant of independence and the termination of the present free-trade relations between the Philippine Islands and the United States. Senator JoHNsoN. Do you feel that you have a personal knowledge of the Philippines I Mr. WEBSTER. To some extent. I have been more or less identified with it for more than 20 years. Senator JOHNsoN. You have made at least three trips there that have been rather extensive? MrI. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator JOHNsoN. You feel that you have some knowiedge of the people themselves Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator Jon-soN. Are vou fond of the people? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir; I like them very much. Senator JOHNSON. Have vou any personal views. aside fromin thoIse that are connected with the transaction of the business in which youl are engaged, with reference to their independence? Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would be a mistake to give them complete and immediate independence without giving them a term of at least 30 years in which to readjust themselves. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say 30 years? Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would take about 30 years for them to properly readjust themselves. I think if they were given their independence immediately it would be extremely disastrous to the Filipinos. Senator JOHNSON. The chairman asks why you advise 30 years. Why not 5, 10, 15, or 20 years? Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would take them about 30 years to readjust themselves. Thirty years is only a short time in the life of a person; and we have only had these islands for about 30 years. They have made some progress, but I think it will take them at least 30 years — Senator JOHNSON. What is it that they are to readjust, in your opinion? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 253 Mr. WEBSTER. They have got to get a little more experience in governing themselves. In order to be successful out there they have got to develop their economic policy. Senator JOHNSON. Are you speaking merely from the standpoint of economic policy now? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. I am not interested particularly in the political end of it. I do not want to discuss that end of it, if you will pardon me. Senator JOHNSON. I just want to get your own opinion. You have here a very carefully prepared and very excellent brief, I have no doubt, but personally I would rather look at you and talk to you and get your own views of it; that is all. So'I was trying to ascertain your own reactions. You yourself do not think that they are fit for independence at the present time? The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking primarily from the economic standpoint? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. What do you think about it from the standpoint of education, from the standpoint of being able as a people to govern themselves? I am not speaking, now, from the economic standpoint at all. Is it your opinion that they are fit for independence at the present time? Mr. WEBSTER. Well, that is a question which, if you will pardon me, I would not care to get involved in at the present time. Senator JOHNSON. I think that is the all-important question. What do you think about it from the standpoint of any obligation that we owe to them? Mr. WEBSTER. We have a certain obligation to them. At the same time, there is a certain obligation that I think the United States owes to itself. Senator JOHNSON. Quite so. What is the obligation that you think we owe to them? Mr. WEBSTER. Some day eventually to give them their independence, if they want it. Senator JOHNSON. When we determine it and not they? Mr. WEBSTER. That is the way I look at it. Senator JOHNSON. Is it your view that independence of a people always depends upon somebody else, or would you leave it to the people themselves to decide? Mr. WEBSTER. I think in a particular case, after consulting with those people, that the United States is the one that ought to determine as to when they should be given their independence. Senator JOHNSON. I see. Of course the question of independence is the ultimate question that comes to us, and upon that I was anxious to get your view, aside from your economic view; but as I understand you, practically you do not wish to express any opinion aside from the economic situation? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Let us put it in another way, and do not answer if you do not want to. Suppose you had no business with the Philippines; suppose you were not engaged in the tremendous enterprises in which you are engaged; assume that you had your knowledge of these people, from traveling, sojourning and the like 254 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS in their midst: would you wish to say whether you believe they could govern themselves appropriately? Mr. WEBSTER. Not immediately. I do not think I would want to say so. I do not think they are prepared immediately to do it. The CHAIRMAN. From the economic viewpoint, which is, of course, enormously important to the people of the Philippines, because on that depends their material prosperity, their pursuit of happiness in large measure depending on economic prosperity, would you tell us why you think it would take 30 years to put them on a sound economic basis where they would not materially suffer from the loss of connection with the United States such as they have now? Mr. WEBSTER. If they were to get immediate independence they would have to have some income in order to operate the government. If they were given immediate independence their entire sugar business would be cut off, because they could not possibly sell any sugar in the United States as against Cuba. As this brief demonstrates, a great many of their principal products would be cut off from this market and they would have to develop other markets and other businesses in order to create enough income to operate their government. The CHAIRMAN. Let us take the sugar business as an example. I understand it is your opinion that if tariff autonomy were granted them, with or without independence, and they did not have the present advantage that they have in bringing sugar into the United States duty free, it would ruin the sugar business in the Philippines Mr. WEBSTER. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Could they not sell to other countries of the world? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think they can compete against Java and Cuba for a second. Their cost of production is such out there that they can not possibly compete against Java on one side and Cuba on this side. Senator VANDENBERG. How would 30 years change that? The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, please, Senator, before you get to that. Do you happen to know what the cost of production is as between Java and the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER. It varies very much. It all depends on whom you ask and how they figure their costs; but I saw a statement just the other day that it was as much as a dollar a hundred pounds. I could not vouch as to whether that is correct or not. There is a very marked difference. Java has developed production very intensively and she uses cane that produces more sugar to the acre undoubtedly than they do in the Philippines. The CHIAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the difference in wages between Java and the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER. No; I do not. Senator VANDENBERG. How would 30 years change that situation? Mr. WEBSTER. They would have to gradually readjust themselves and get down to brass tacks to the extent that they would have to go back to conditions existing 30 years ago. You have got to remember that the Americans have changed the entire point of view out there. Senator VANDENBERG. Does that mean, then, that in your jud(ment they never could maintain independence on their existing' levels of wages and living? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 255 Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think they could, Senator. Senator VANDENBERG. They never could? Mr. WEBSTER. I would almost be willing to say that they never could. I doubt it. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you to believe, then, that this 30 -year period would have to be used by them in gradually lowering their wages and lowering their standard of living until they were able to get down to the Java level, if they were going to compete with Java? Is that your theory? Mr. WEBSTER. That is what it would amount to, Senator. They could not possibly compete against Java unless there is complete reconstruction of wages and conditions out there. Senator VANDENBERG. I can not see how 30 years would be of any more use to them than 5 years, because at the end of 30 years you are going to sink them; and your objection to 5 years is that they would sink. ' Mr. WEBSTER. Do you think it would be fair to sink them under five years? Senator VANDENBERG. I do not think so; but I was wondering if your logic does not inevitably lead to a permanent refusal of independence. Mr. WEBSTER. I would not say that. If at the end of 30 years they wanted to stay with the United States, let them; and if they did not, let them go on their own way. They have got ample notice, then, as to what to prepare themselves for. Senator JOHNSON. DO you not think that they have notice now? Mr. WEBSTER. There has been a great deal of discussion about it, Senator, but it has never got to such an acute stage as at present. I do not think that any of the discussion that has taken place heretofore has been taken so seriously as it is now. Senator JOHNSON. In 1924 the question was quite seriously discussed. Senator VANDENBERG. And in 1916. Senator JOHNSON. It was in 1924, at the instance of the Secretary of War, that I introduced a bill with reference to it. It rested here without consideration, but it was considered over on the other side. Mr. WEBSTER. To give the Philippines their independence and cut off their entire market on sugar, you have got to take into consideration the effect that it is liable to have on Hawaii, because the labor that Hawaii requires at the present time principally comes from the Philippine Islands. That means that their market for labor will be cut off. You are practically playing into the hands of Cuba, almost creating a monopoly on sugar in the United States market. That is what it amounts to. Senator JOHNSON. Who plays into the hands of Cuba under such a situation-the United States? Mr. WEBSTER. Whatever decision is reached in this matterSenator JOHNSON. Would play into the hands of Cuba? Mr. WEBSTER. It would be practically playing into the hands of Cuba. Senator JOHNSON. Just pardon one other question. Do you think that is a reason for denying independence if the people are entitled to it? 256 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AMr. WEBSTER. I am not arguing that. Senator. at all. I am just putting up the case to you. Senator JOHNsoN. But that is a big question with some of us, so I wanted to get your view if I could. I do not want to discuss the philosophic idea of freedom. but some of us may be actuated by it in reality rather than by the economic situation. With you the economic situation is all controlling, as I understand it. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. The fact that a people might desire their independence with unanimity, the fact that they might be ready for that independence, would preclude you from granting it if economically you feared for their future? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not know that the people show any such unbounded enthusiasm for independence. Senator JOHNSoN. I do not, either. I was asking hypothetically. AMr. WEBSTER. I do not think you will find any disturbance out there if the Filipinos are not given their independence immediately. I think they are beginning to realize what it is going to mean if they get independence. We have a very concrete example of that in the last nine months or so. on account of the great slump in business simply because there has been this Philippine discussion going on, showing that the Filipinos themselves are beginning to sit up and take notice of what this means. They are even hesitating about committing themselves. Senator JOIINSON. In your opinion, there is a division of sentiment on the islands? Mr. WEBSTER. I think so; but of course the people that are opposed to it are not particular at allThe CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any campaign of education that has been carried on in the Philippine Islands to show the ordinary citizen, the ordinary voter, what the economic result of independence would be? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think there has been an attempt to do that. at all. It has been discussed, but there has never been the slightest move in that direction. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the average citizen, the average voter, who is now keen for independence, believes that independence means continued or greater economic prosperity for them? Mr. WEBSTER. It has been preached at them so long that independence means continued prosperity that they do not recognize anything else: and I think if a campaign of education were indulged in they would see the difference in what it would mean to t hem, that their wag-es would be likely to be very materially cut. The CtIAIRI:\ A. What would you say to a proposal similar to that offered by Senator Vandenberg in his bill, which I understand is based on the bill originally introduced by Senator Johnson, for a lgradual establishment of tariff autonomy to be followed perhaps by a plebiscite as to what they desired with regard to independence? Mr. WEBSTER. As I understand Senator Vandenberg's bill, he proposes in the first and second year to have duty free; the third and fourth years, 25 per cent of the full duty of each country; the fifth and sixth years, 50 per cent: and the seventh and eighth years, 75 per cent. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 257 If that is done on an item like sugar, as an example-there is no reference made in the bill to any reciprocity basis with the Philippine Islands-the Philippines would be placed on a full-duty basis; they would not even be placed on the same basis as Cuba. The CHAIRMAN. Ultimately. Mr. WEBSTER. There is nothing said in the bill, as I understand it. That would mean that at the end of the sixth year the Philippines would be practically on an independent basis, because their sugar would pay $1.65, against $1.76 at the present time paid by Cuba, and it would mean that the Philippines could not even compete against Cuba on an 11-cent differential like that. So that to all intents and purposes the Philippines would be independent, turned loose at the end of the sixth year. So I can not see anything particularly of value for the PhilippinesThe CHAIRMAN. I do not think you quite caught the force of my question, which had to do with whether you would favor a prebiscite with regard to independence after a period, such as suggested in Senator Vandenberg's bill, of economic readjustment, which, according to what you have told us, would undoubtedly cause a very serious economic disturbance and, in fact, might wipe out the major part of one of their principal industries. Mr. WEBSTER. It would be all right, Senator, if you made it long enough-if you made it 30 years. But I think Senator Vandenberg's proposal is altogether too short. Senator VANDENBERG. Eliminating the detail of the arithmetic, in which I have no pride of opinion, because, as I said when I introduced the bill, I was merely presenting a philosophy of procedure, do you not think, to begin with, that the existing uncertainty as to the status of the islands is a great hazard to them and to our trade both? Mr. WEBSTER. Decidedly. Senator VANDENBERG. Therefore it is advantageous to both of the countries, if possible, to end the uncertainty? Mr. WEBSTER. That is right. Senator VANDENBERG. As I understand your point of view, the safest way to end the uncertainty would be to establish a probationary period, in which they could find out for themselves what independence means and we could find out for ourselves whether they were equal to the responsibility? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. If at the end of that probationary period they had the opportunity to see whether they wanted independence, would not that action fit into your views? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. The only quarrel that you would have with the program as tentatively drafted would be, first, as to the length of the probation, and, second, perhaps, as'to whether or not there ought to be a preferential tariff reciprocity in the program? Mr. WEBSTER. I think, if you are going to make it for a period, in the first place, it ought to be made long enough, and, in the second place, during that period there ought to be more or less free trade, because I do not think that you will make it up by steps the way you propose, as I have just illustrated to you a short while ago. It 92109-30-PT 3- 2 258 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS means that within half the period, almost, you are practically going to have full duty against the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. You say there ought to be free trade during this probationary period Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; between the two countries. Senator VANDENBERG. How would they know at the end of the period whether or not they could stand on their own self-sufficiency? Mr. WEBSTER. They would adjust themselves by the end of 30 years. They know it is going to come. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you got Senator Vandenberg's question. Senator VANDENBERG. Yes; he wants to maintain free trade throughout that period and thus defeat the very purpose of the probation. The CHAIRMAN. That is why I think he did not get the force of your question. The question, as I understood it, was as to whether or not through this probationary period they would learn through experience what independence was ultimately going to mean; and if it were as serious to them from an economic standpoint as you think, they might then vote to be still a part of the United States. We have seen it in the immigrants we have received from Europe. There is quite a quarrel among historians as to whether the early immigrants came here because of their love of freedom, as some of us who descended from them like to think, or whether, as the economic historians say, they came over on account of the rich bottom lands in the Hudson Valley and the Connecticut Valley, and so on. Millions of immigrants who have come over in the last 100 years certainly have had almost as much freedom at home as they have had here. Did they come for economic betterment? I do not see, frankly, how you are going to have these people make an intelligent decision unless you have a kind of probationary period suggested by Senator Vandenberg. To get back to my question, and putting it in briefer form, how can you educate the ordinary voter in the Philippines as to what independence means to him from an economic standpoint unless you adopt something similar to what is suggested by Senator Vandenberg? I do not see how you can get it by your proposal of 30 years of free trade, and then, Bang! " You must now decide whether you are going to have your independence or not." Because by that time they will have been, according to your theory, prosperous, and it is not likely that the majority of them will have any realization of just what it means; or even if they have a realization, it may be mistaken. What is your real objection to a gradual acquir-ement of tariff autonomy in order that they may learn what economic independence means? Mr. WEBSTER. Principally because too short a period is proposed by Senator Vandenberg. Senator VANDENBERG. Eliminate the period. Sav it is 30 years. Mr. WEBSTER. If you start your steps then, there will be no objection to it. The CHAIRMAN.. He wants free trade the rest of his lifetime. Senator JOHNSON. You will start your steps when? Mr. WEBSTER. In 30 years. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 259 Senator JOHNSON. At the expiration of 30 years? Mr. WEBSTER. If the Philippines want their independence then. Of course I think that at the end of 30 years neither you nor I will need to worry about this thing. Senator JOHNSON. I am very certain I will not. But you would have no gradations during 30 years. Is that what you mean? Mr. WEBSTER. That is only my own personal preference. Senator JOHNSON. That is what we are ascertaining here the best we can. The CHAIRMAN. You could not have a plebiscite at the end of 30 years, because they would have had no experience. But come back to my question, which I think you have not answered. What would be your objection to running a graduated tariff autonomy over a period of the next 30 years so that at the end of 30 years they might have complete tariff autonomy? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think it would give them time enough. As soon as you put any restriction on trade there it is going to interfere with the Philippines themselves in readjusting themselves and interfere with the American business over there as well. Senator JOHNSON. Do you lay any stress upon the plebiscite? Mr. WEBSTER. I am not concerned about it, Senator, at all. Senator JOHNSON. No; but do you think that in the orderly processes of solving this question a plebiscite should be held? Mr. WEBSTER. A plebiscite at the end of 30 years? I do not think there is anything to be concerned about at all. Senator JOHNSON. Nor at any other time. Could you conceive of any people-good, bad, or indifferent-to whom was submitted the question of independence voting otherwise than for independence? Mr. WEBSTER. At the present time they would vote for independence. Senator JOHNSON. I do not care whether it is at the present time or at any other time; do you not think that any people, under any circumstances, would always register themselves for independence? Mr. WEBSTER. I am not so sure about it. If it were clearly demonstrated to the Filipino people what the separation of the United States from them meant at the end of 30 years, I am not so sure. Senator VANDENBERG. Ilow are you going to demonstrate it except as you give them a taste of a tariff war? Mr. WEBSTER. They would be put on ample warning. Senator VANDENBERG. Warning is not a taste. Senator JOHNSON. The Senator suggests a taste of tariff war. That is, you are going to punish the child for the purpose of making it understand its condition. Mr. WEBSTER. Sometimes the punishment is not effective. Senator VANDENBERG. And to withhold it is not always a kindness to the child. Senator JOHNSON. It is with a people. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be in favor of giving the Philippines the same type of self-government that exists in the States of the Union and still retaining them under the flag? Let us say, a dominion status, for instance, like that of Canada. Mr. WEBSTER. They have a great deal of autonomy at the present time. I do not know as they could be given a great deal more 260 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS than they have. If it was thought wise to give them additional control of the government, I can not see any objection to it personally. The CHAIRMLAN. They would like to have the privilege of electing their own governor. IMr. WEBSTER. I think that is about the only thing they are asking for. The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe that that would satisfy their desires for liberty? Mr. W7EBSTER. I think it would go a long way toward removing some of the present agitation. The CHAIRMANr. From your knowledge of the Philippines, do you regard their intense desire for immediate and complete independence as based on the theory that one can not enjoy personal liberty and independence under the American flag? Mr. WEBSTER. They have talked about independence so long, and both parties have no other topic to talk about, that it just comes natural to them to talk about independence. Senator JOHNsON. Do you mean that all parties are for indepenence? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. If one party does not talk it up, some of the others will, because thev are both on their toes all the time. Senator JOHNSON. They are quite as enthusiastic as the Republican Party is for prohibition? Mr. AWEBSTER. Yes. Senator JoHNsoN. Is there in your opinion any division of sentiment in the Philippines at present? Mr. WEBSTER. On the surface there is not. Senator JoHNsoN. You deal, I assume, with business men in the Philippines, do you not? And when I say that I mean Filipinos who are engaged in business, and you come in contact with them. I am not asking as to specific individuals or anything of that sort. of course; but do you find those men that are engaged in the real trade, the real business, wishing independence? Mr. WEBSTER. No; they do not. Senator JOHNSON. Are they what we would be pleased to term, perhaps, the solider citizens? Mr. WEBSTER. If you want to term them solid citizens. I think if we took a poll, a confidential poll, of the solid citizens, they would be against independence. Senator JOHNSON. That is what I am driving at. Senator VANDENBERG. You mean natives? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator JoHNsoN. That is your well-considered opinion, is it? Mr. WEBSTER. It is my personal opinion. Senator VANDENBERG. Is any of your trade with the Chinese merchants of the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER. Ohl, yes. Senator VANDENBERG. You were not thinking of their point of view in that statement? Mr. WEBSTER. No. We do not consider them as Filipino citizens. Some of them are, though. Senator VANDENBERG. Getting back to your own business for just a moment: Is any of your traffic with the Philippines carried in the v.hips operated by the United States Shipping Board? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 261 'Mr. WEBSTER. Practically all of our shipments from the Pacific coast go on American steamers. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you know whether any of those steamers are in the lines operated by the United States Shipping Board? Mr. WEBSTER. The United States Shipping Board has withdrawn most of their steamers from that service. I think there are some operated by the Roosevelt Line out of New York. But as to the trade on the Pacific coast, we give preference-all of our shipments move in American bottoms. As to the Atlantic, there is so much competition on the Atlantic that we figure the difference in time. The steamer that makes the quickest time out there gets the cargo. Senator VANDENBERG. You do not know to what extent you use Shipping Board ships Mr. WEBSTER. We give preference always to American bottoms. The CHAIRMAN. Coming back a moment to what you said a little while ago about the opinion among what was referred to as the more solid among the Filipino citizens, has it been your experience that they are afraid to express opinions publicly which were in opposition to the well-known principles of the political leader? Mr. WEBSTER. I would not put it that way. They did not express their opinion because it would not be politic for them to say so. The CHAIRMAN. But you are sure that privately they are opposed to independence M.r WEBSTER. I think I am safe in saying that. The CHAIRMAN. You say you would be safe in saying that. Do you know of actual cases? Mr. WEBSTER. I know of certain actual cases, yes, that I heard about myself. The CHAIRMAN. How is one to get at the views of the Filipino business man if he is unwilling to state publicly what he will tell you privately? Mr. WEBSTER. That is one of the difficulties about this present situation. It is a very difficult thing to get anybody to express himself. Senator JOHNSON. Would they talk to.a commission that went out there, confidentially? Mr. WEBSTER. I question that, because they are right in the atmosphere there. I doubt it. The CHAIRMAN. Your theory is, from your experience in the Philippines,-that the general sentiment is so strong toward independence that a commission would not be likely to secure an expression of opinion from people who differed on the general question? Mr. WEBSTER. That is my opinion; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then there would not be much use in sending a commission out there to secure information of that sort, would there? Mr. WEBSTER. A commission going out there, if they went out there for a conference to get information, I think would be a very good thing. They could get some facts, possibly, that they can not get over here. But as far as a commission going out to decide what to do right on the ground there, I think they will get better results over here than they would there. 262 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMI'AN. Do you think there would be any effort on the part of the Filipino business men to refrain from expressing an opinion as to the effect of independence on their business? Mr. WEBSTER. I think they would hesitate about it. I do not think they would come forward freely and express themselves to any such commission. They would hesitate. The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear of the large contributions that were made by the sugar companies toward sending an independent commission to Washington some years ago Mr. WEBSTER. You mean, during the Timberlake discussion? The CHAIRMAN. No; several years ago. Mr. WEBSTER. No; I did not hear anything about that. The CHAIIRMAN. You may proceed with your brief. Analyze the facts. Tell us what the different points are. What we are chiefly interested in. I may say. is any information which you can bring us on the effect on the Philippine Islands of independence from the business standpoint. Mr. WEBSTER. That is very well covered in this brief, Senator, and if you want it read, I wTill be glad to read it. It is pretty well covered. The CHAIRMAN. Read the more significant parts of it without giving us too many details. Mr. WEBSTER. The fear has been expressed that the production of sugar in the Philippines will rapidly increase. This fear is based on comparisons of present exports of sugar from the Philippine Islands with those between 1900 and 1909. Then the Philippine sugar industry was at low ebb, due to conditions in the islands and to the lack of a market for its sugar. In considering Philippine production, consideration must be given to the fact that in 1895, the year before the Filipino insurrection against Spain began, the Philippines exported 336,075 tons of sugar. All of that sugar was low-grade muscovado sugar, of a type which to-day can not be sold in the United States. That sugar was produced by crude methods, by which but about 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the juice was extracted from the cane. The quantity of sugarcane which would produce 336,075 tons of muscavado sugar would, if ground in modern sugar mills such as now are operating in the Philippines, give a production of approximately 560,000 tons. As Philippine sugar imported into the United States in 1928 amounted to but 512,673 long tons, it is obvious that the Philippines are to-day producing but little more sugarcane than during the last years of Spanish rule. I think that is one particular point that has not been emphasized here. There has been great fear that the Filipinos are going to overproduce sugar; and yet it is shown that prior to the American rule there was practically as much sugar produced in the Philippines as there is now. The CHAIRMAN. DO you think that Congress, in deciding about Philippine independence, ought to be influenced by the fact that the Philippines can or can not produce four or five times as much sugar as they are producing now? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think they should, Senator, but there has been so much made of the lack of competition with regard to sugar coming into the United States from the Philippines, and also coconut INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 263 oil. That seems to be one of the principal reasons why there seems to be such an agitation to give the Filipinos their independence at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. You realize that there are two sides to that question Mr. WEBSTER. Oh, yes. The CHAIRMAN. There are people who believe that since there are no Tropics in the continental United States, we should retain the Philippines, which are entirely in the Tropics where we can produce rubber and coconut oil, and so on, and from the point of view of our own economic prosperity we should retain them; and similarly, on the other side, there are those in this country who produce sugar and vegetable oils and who think that the imports of those products interfere with their prosperity, and therefore we ought not to retain the Philippines. So, after all, you must balance one against the other. I do not know how the other members of the committee feel, but I think it does not make any difference in this situation whether they can produce 500,000 tons or 2,000,000 tons of sugar. Senator HAWES. I think that is very important, Mr. Chairman. The statement has been repeatedly made: " Why do anything with the Philippines, because they have reached a maximum of their productive power in sugar, copra, and so forth." It is either true or it is not true. A witness who testified during the first hearings said that it was not true; that their prospective production would be two or three times what it is at present under certain circumstances. It would be very interesting to know whether they have reached the maximum. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that whether they have reached the maximum or not ought to have any bearing on our decision with regard to independence? Senator HAWES. I think so; yes, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you take the position that if they are likely to produce much more than they are producing now, that would be a reason for giving them independence and keeping them out of our market? Senator HAWES. A reason for a settlement or adjustment now rather than later on, because if this prospective great increase in production is ahead of us, the adjustment ought to be made before that takes place, or at least a decision arrived at. So I say it is very vitally important. The CHAIRMAN. It is your view, Mr. Webster, that there is very little chance of a great increase? I gather that from what you have said. Mr. WEBSTER. There is very little chance of its being increased very much over what it is, unless there is a material tendency toward more capital going into the Philippines. In recent years there has been no tendency toward any additional American capital going into the Philippines. The CHAIRMAN. Why does not capital go into the islands, if they have the opportunity, as has been testified by the speaker of the Philippine House of Representatives, to raise two or three times what they are raising now? Mr. WEBSTER. Because of the great uncertainty in regard to the future of the Philippines. 264 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. As long as we retain our present control over the Philippines and the uncertain condition exists, American capital will not go in, and certainly foreign capital will not go in. Mr. WEBSTER. Under those circumstances you can not expect a very great increase in sugar production, because it takes capital to produce sugar. Senator HA-ES. Exactly; but with capital goinir in. it would increase. So we are confronted with a situation of tying the Filipinos so that they stop automatically where capital stops, or a readjustment of the situation which would permit new capital to come in. With new capital going in, the speakers have testified that two or three times the production of sugar and cocoa would be brought about with the assistance of capital. Is that your conclusion? Mr. WEBSTER. There would be a slight increase if the status of the Philippine Islands were definitely determined. Senator HAWES. I mean, if there were more capital that went in there, there is an area that could be increased? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. It would take some years to do it, because there has not been any particular increase in cane areas during practically all the time since the Americans have been there. It has simply been the old land that has been used. Senator HAWES. But with capital and machinery, the acreage is there, is it not? Mr. WEBSTER. There is acreage there that could be developed. The CHAIRMAN. If we gave them independence, then, would capital immediately start flowing in? Mr. WEBSTER. If you gave them independence? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. WEBSTER. No. I don't think any capital would go out there. The CHAIRMAN. Let me get that clearly. You believe that if they were given independence they would get no new capital? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think so. The CHAIRMrAN. Senator Hawes seemed to feel that if they were given independence and the question were settled, then capital would flow into the Philippines. Mr. WEBSTER. I thought that Senator Hawes was referring to the fact that if the United States continued in power out there, then capital would go out there. But if they were given independence it would not go out there. The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion as a business man, having had twenty or thirty years experience in the Philippines, what do you say would cause an influx of capital in the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER. A settlement of the status of the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. You mean, one way orMr. WEBSTER. If yOU settled the status of the Philippine Islands and the United States was to remain in control there, capital would go out there. But if you are going to give the Philippines their independence, capital will not go out there. The CHAIRMAN. Then the opinion which you have expressed and which is so heartily indorsed by the Senator from Missouri, needs a qualifying clause. You stated when I asked you what would cause an influx of capital that a definite settlement would cause it. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; if it is settled favorably. The CHAIRMAN. Which way? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 265 Mr. WEBSTER. If it was the idea of the United States to remain in control for the next 30 years. The CHAIRMAN. If Congress passed a law that the status of the Philippine Islands should remain as it is to-day for 30 years, and that then they should have their independence, you are of the opinion that capital would flow in? Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would go out there. The CHAIRMAN. If we were to state definitely that the Philippine Islands should be a dominion or an organized territory, then are you of the opinion that capital would flow in? Mr. WEBSTER. Under the control of the United States? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; naturally. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; capital would flow in. The CHAIRMAN. If we were to state definitely that the Philippines should have their independence in two or three years, would capital flow in? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN. If we were to state that they were to have their independence in 10 years, would capital flow in? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Mr. WEBSTER. What would be the inducement for any capital to go out there when they know that in 10 years the Islands are going to be free? They could not amortize their investment. Anybody going out there to invest capital would have to do it in rubber or coffee or some crop like that, and it takes years to develop those. The CHAIRMAN. It seems to be agreed on all sides by the Filipinos and their friends that they need more capital? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the minimum period within which they could attract sufficient capital to bring prosperity to the Philippine Islands? Mr, WEBSTER. I should say, 30 years. The CHAIRMAN. You think 30 years would be the minimum? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. I do not think you could do it in 20 years. I do not think that would give anybody time enough to amortize their investment. The CHAIRMAN. You do believe that if it were agreed that at the end of 30 years they should have their independence complete, and that in the meantime free trade operations would continue, capital would flow in and prosperity would follow? Mr. WEBSTER. I think so. Senator HAWES. The situation with regard to the Philippines at the present time is one of uncertainty due to the fact that we have promised them their independence? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. And the question comes up every once in a while as to when that is to be granted? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator HAWES. SO, as I understand you, with that uncertainty American capital does not go in in increased quantities? Mr. WEBSTER. It has not gone in. Senator HAWES. Of course foreign capital does not go in? The CHAIRMAN. Why, "of course," Senator? 266 INDEPENDENCE FOP THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Because it is under American control. The CHAIRMIAN. Does not foreign capital ever come into the United States? Senator HAWES. It comes into the United States, but it does not go into a tropical investment of that kind where there is uncertainty as to the form of government, which may be changed at any time. But if the Philippines had their independence, then there would be an inducement for foreign capital to go into the Philippines. Mr. WEBSTER. Well, foreign capital is just as "cagy " as American capital. Senator HAwES. They will not go in now? Mr. WESTER. It would all depend upon what the status was of the Philippine Islands as to whether or not foreign capital would go in there. Senator HAwES. Certainly. They would analyze the situation and be controlled by the analysis of the situation. But now they will not go in? Mr. WEBSTER. Neither of them will go in at the present time. Senator HAwES. So the result is that Philippine business with the United States is constantly increasing? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator HAwES. And there is no development of their trade with Japan or China or the rest of the world. The bonds are tightening all the time between America and the Philippines. Thirty years from now, if we hold them 30 years longer, a situation will have developed in which we will never let them go. I mean. it would become increasin-glv difficult to let them go. So this uncertainty that affects both the Philippines and capital and trade relations is a thing that ought to be settled. Would it not help American capital to know that we were going to keep the islands permanently or that we were going to dispose of them at a stated time? Mr. WEBSTER. I think prior to your coming in, Senator, I discussed that and set it at 30 years so that they would know definitely.' The Filipinos themselves would be better satisfied if they knew definitely what the period was. I think it ought to be set at 30 years. Senator HAWES. You think 30 years is the proper length of time? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. Senator HAWNES. That is over another generation. Mr. WEBSTER. We have been down there 30 years, and it does not take long for 30 years to pass. Senator HAWES. I don't know about that. Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to revert for a moment to the thought that the business leaders in the Philippines are really opposed to independence. Are you familiar with the names of the business leaders in the Philippine Islands in a general way? Mr. WEBSTER. In a general way I know them. Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to hand you a list of 12 names and ask you if you consider them as representative of the native Filipino business world? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes; they are. Senator VANDENBERG. These gentlemen have all joined, not through a political organization but through a business organization, a native chamber of commerce, in asking for immediate independence. Would you think we were entitled to place any credence in that request? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 267 Mr. WEBSTER. That is up to you to decide, Senator. I prefer not to get into any discussion regarding that. Senator VANDENBERG. The record indicates that these Filipino business men, on February 9, 1929, passed a resolution declaring that whereas it has been said repeatedly that only the Filipinos clamor for independence, nevertheless, these business men, in convention assembled, insist that that is not the case and that they do want independence. I am perplexed to know how we are to find the precise fact if we can not depend upon what they say in public, and I am wondering if you can indicate to us any method by which we could find the precise fact. Mr. WEBSTER. Unless you went out there independently and began inquiring around. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Webster, will you proceed with your brief, please Mr. WEBSTER. The increase in the production of Philippine sugar has been due to the modernization of the sugar industry, made necessary if that industry were to survive, and not to any material expansion of areas devoted to sugarcane. Land laws, lack of capital, and lack of labor adapted to the growing of sugar indicate that there will be no increase in the production of sugar in the Philippine Islands during the next few years, except as may normally be expected from better agricultural methods. Dr. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, consulting technologist of the American Sugar Cane League, in a statement made in October, 1929, before sugar planters and business men who attended a luncheon given in his honor by the league in New Orleans, stated, as a result of his survey during an extended trip to sugar-producing countries, including Java, Philippines, Formosa, and Hawaii, that any increase in sugar production in those countries in the next few years will be counterbalanced by the normal increase in world consumption. He stated, in effect, that Hawaii, the Philippines, and Formosa are reaching their limit, and that, while an increase in the sugar tariff may draw some additional capital to the Philippines, conditions there are not favorable to excessive increases in production. The CHAIRMAN. Whose opinion was that? Mr. WEBSRER. Dr. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, consulting technologist of the American Sugar Cane League. He gave as his conclusion that Hawaii, the Philippines, and Formosa are not likely to be producing more than 1,000,000 tons of sugar each in the next 10 years; and that with reasonable tariff protection for the United States sugar industry he considered Louisiana a more:attractive field for sugar investments than any of the countries mentioned. Regarding copra and coconut oil; copra, the dried meat of the coconut, is the source of coconut oil. Copra is on the free list, but the United States tariff imposes a duty of 2 cents a pound on coconut oil imported from foreign countries. That duty has been in force since 1922. Coconut oil is extracted from copra in the Philippine Islands and also in the United States. Exports of copra from the Philippine Islands to the United States in 1928 amounted to $17,603,832. This was 78.1 per cent of the total 268 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS exports of copra from the islands. Exports of coconut oil from the Philippine Islands to the United States amounted in 1928 to $23,239,520, or 98.9 per cent of the total. It is thus obvious that because of the duty of 2 cents a pound imposed on coconut oil imported from foreign countries, practically the entire production of coconut oil in the Philippines is shipped to the United States; but that, on the other hand, a considerable part of the copra produced in the Philippines is shipped to other countries. Of the coconut oil imported into the United States. practically all comes from the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, in 1928 the United States imported 501,507,400 pounds of copra. of which but 371,889,394 pounds, or 74 per cent, came from the Philippines. Coconut oil is used principally in the manufacture of soaps. It is but one of the many vegetable oils used for that purpose. The vegetable oil most used in the United States is cottonseed oil; it is principally used for the manufacture of edible products, such as lard compounds, lard substitutes, and table oils. The CHAIRMAN. Are you engaged in the business of importing coconut oil? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir. We do not import anything at all. The CHAIRMAN. Then you are merely speaking through hearsay or expert testimony of others? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We have had the industry represented here. so I think, unless there is objection, we will omit that part of your brief relating to that particular subject, as the committee already has information on that. I might ask whether you have any opinion that you would care to express regarding the effect thn the coconut business in the Philippine Islands in case of independence. Mr. WEBSTER. That is covered here. It goes into detail here as to the effect. The CHAIRMAN. Could you summarize your views in just a few words? I would like to get your thought in regard to that without: having you read all that you have in your brief about it. Mr. WEBSTER. It will be likely to affect the production of coconut oil, but unless there is a duty placed against copra, copra is still likely to come into the United States. The effect would be that the coconut oil, instead of being crushed in the Philippines, would be crushed in the United States. Of course, there is a great deal of copra at the present time going to Europe. The CHAIRMAN. Then it would not very seriously affect the coconut business in the Philippine Islands. Mr. WEBSTER. It would not affect the copra business as much as it would affect the sugar business. The CHAIRMAN. It would not affect the copra business-that is, the dried coconut-at all, you think. There would be just the same market for that as there is to-day? Mr. WEBSTER. It all depends on whether there was a duty placed on it here in the United States. I think there is a great deal made of the alleged competition from coconut oil. After all, the farmer does not realize that of all the coconut oil that comes into the United States, practically 60 per cent of it is made into soap, and does not go for edible purposes. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND3f 269 The CHAIRMAN. There is a good deal to be said, apparently, on both sides of the coconut oil question. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to get at is your view, as a man interested in the Philippine Islands, as to the effect on the coconut business in the Philippines. I understand that there are a good many millions of coconut trees in the groves in the Philippines, and perhaps something over 1,000,000,000 coconuts are harvested each year. I am asking your opinion as to whether that business would seriously suffer in the case of independence being immediately granted. Mr. WEBSTER. I think I can best cover it by reading a short extract here. If Philippine coconut oil were made dutiable on entering the United States, the industry in the Philippine Islands would be wiped out, for the reason that it could not compete with producers of coconut oil in the United States, even though Philippine copra were used, while other markets are generally closed. This would carry with it copra meal, a by-product. On the other hand, the copra used in the manufacture of coconut oil would be available for export and would be exported either to the United States or to foreign countries, although values might be slightly lower if duties were imposed on copra entering the United States. The decline would thus be the difference. between the export value of copra used in the manufacture of coconut oil in the Philippines and the export values of coconut oil and copra meal. If desiccated coconut were made dutiable on entering the United States, the industry would be wiped out, although the coconuts used in making desiccated coconut would be made into copra. It is thus estimated that exports of copra would increase about $24,500,000, and that the net decline in the value of all coconut exports would be $5,125,657. Senator HAWES. Mr. Webster, are you opposed to Philippine independence? Mr. WEBSTER. No, sir; we are not opposed to Philippine independence ultimately. We are opposed to the complete and immediate granting of independence. Senator HAWES. Your argument in opposition to it is based on the assumption that duties would immediately be put on all these articles. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. As a matter of fact, of course, that is a question Congress would decide. It might do it or it might not do it. The CHAIRMAN. I think before you came in, Senator, the witness expressed himself in favor of independence at the end of 30 years, provided they could have free trade for 30 years. Senator HAWES. Then, your idea is that the Philippines are not ready for independence, and neither is Congress ready to express an opinion on the subject, for a period of 30 years, as applied to both. Mr. WEBSTER. As I expressed myself before, I do not think it would be advisable that they should be given independence. I do not think the Filipinos would be prepared for it. I do not think they are economically prepared for it. Senator HAWES. You are not quite ready to trust Congress to decide upon the question of a duty, then? 270 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. WEBSTER. If you are going to put a duty on them, you might as well give them independence. Senator HAWES. But aside from that, under the present condition, the Philippines have no independence, and can not get it without an act of Congress, and Congress can not put a duty on them, or will not do it, until that question is settled. All these arguments against independence are based upon the theory that automatically duties would follow. It means only that Congress would be placed in a position to put on duties or take them off. At the present time it can not do either one. Tile CHAIRMAN. Have you anything in your brief regarding the effect on your own business, or the businesses that you represent as agent? Mr. WEBSTER. No. We have not gone into that phase of it at all. We have fairly clear ideas as to what might result, but we have not discussed that in this brief at all. The CHAIRMIAN. Will you give us your view on that, if you have fairly clear ideas as to the effect? Let us hear your views. Mr. WEBSTER. I think that, so far as the United States is concerned, that is, the products of American manufacturers and producers, the business would practically cease, except in a few specialized lines. For instance, if a duty were placed on everything coming from the United States, the same as any other country would have to pay, and if the Philippines were given their independence it would have this result. Take a commodity like flour. At the present time the flour that is going into the Philippine Islancd is the product of about 200,000 acres of wheat land in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and to some extent in Oregon. If the Philippines are given their independence and a duty is placed, it would mean that that market would be shut off entirely. The CHAIRMAN Where would the Philippines then get their flour? Mr. WEBSTER. What flour business would be left would come either from Canada or Australia. That is happening to-day, for instance, in Java. Java is getting her flour practically entirely from Australia and Canada, and the United States does a very small business there. The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference in the Philippines as between the cost of a barrel of flour from Canada and a barrel of flour from the United States to-day? Mr. WEBSTER. I do not know what the duty is on that. The CHAIRMAN. Is tie duty on Canadian flour sufficient now to insure the flour market to the United States? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The duty is sufficient to protect American producers. The CHAIRMAN. Do they use much flour in Java? Mr. WEBSTER Yes; they use quite a good deal. The CHAIRMAN. Do they get any of it from the United States? Mr. WEBSTER. A very small part; just a fraction. The CHAIRMAN. How about China? Does China import any flour? Mr. WEBSTER. China does; and the United States is gradually losing that market also. There are only a few sections in China that the United States is able to sell to at the present time. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 271 The CHAIRMAN. Where do they get their flour from? Mr. WEBSTER. Canada and Australia. The CHAIRMAN. Your theory is, then, or your belief-you are an exporter of flour, are you? Mr. WEBSTER. Oh, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is that one of your principal commodities? Mr. WEBSTER. It is one of our principal commodities. The CHAIRMAN. As an exporter of flour, it is your theory, then, that Philippine independence would cut off the market for American flour in the Philippines, as it has done in Java? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And is doing in China? Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir. The same thing would be true on textiles. The Philippines to-day is the largest export market in the world that the United States has. and the business out there in 1928, I think, amounted to over $15,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. Do you export textiles to the Philippines? Mr. WEBSTER Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any market for American textiles in China? Mr. WEBSTER. If my memory serves me correctly, in 1928 China imported about $40,000,000 worth of textiles. I think the United States did only about $250,000 worth of business there. In the event that a tariff is placed against American goods in the Philippines, the same thing would happen in the Philippines, because the American manufacturer can not compete. The CHAIRMAN. With whom? Mr. WEBSTER. With Great Britain principally, and with Japan, on these cheaper goods. The only reason the United States is able to hold that market out there is on account of the tariff preference. The CHAIRMAN. How seriously would independence affect our total exports to the Philippines, judging from your own business? Mr. WEBSTER. I think it would reduce them at least 50 per cent, and it might run even as high as 70 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. What lines would be most seriously affected, aside from flour? Mr. WEBSTER. Flour and textiles, the steel business, and machinery. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions, or have you anything further? Mr. WEBSTER. No; I have nothing further. Senator HAWES. Are you familiar with Senator Vandenberg's bill Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. We were discussing it a little while ago. Senator HAWES. That would provide for a period of readjustment, with a tariff arrangement. Did you express an opinion on that? Mr. VEBSTER. As I told the Senator a little. while ago, there is no arrangement made there about any reciprocity; and while it was intended that in 10 years the Philippines would be given their independence, the effect was that at the end of 6 years, on a commodity like sugar, the Philippines would be practically independent, because sugar would be shut out. The Senator provides that they would pay the full duty, whereas, with respect to Cuba, they are getting a 20 per cent preferential. 272 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Mr. Webster, your fear or your alarm is all predicated on the thought that the Philippines would do a very foolish thing after they had independence, and the United States would also do a very foolish thing. Suppose they both acted sensibly about it. Half of your alarm would disappear. I mean that in our rearrangements of our tariff schedules, and so forth, the relations of the two countries would be considered. Your alarm is based on a tariff wall in the Philippines and another tariff wall in the United States, which, of course, would be one thing; but if that does not happen, your predictions would not necessarily come true. The CHAIRMAN. How necessary would it be to the Philippines to put a tariff on American goods for the revenue which they might derive from it? Mr. WEBSTER. Under existing conditions there would be no necessity of putting a tariff on at all, but if they were an independent government, of course, they would have to raise some revenue. At the present time there are some foreign goods coming in there, of course, on which they get some revenue. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. (Mr. Webster submitted the subjoined brief, following his introductory remarks:) I. ARE IMPORTS FROM THE PHILLIPINE ISLANDS INTO THE UNITED STATES HARMFUL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE AMERICAN FARMER? It has been contended that imports of sugar from the Philippine Islands into the United States free of duty have been hurting the beet-sugar industry of the country and the can-sugar industry of Louisiana. It also has been contended that imports of copra and coconut oil into the United States frommthe Philippine Islands free of duty have been hurting the dairy and hog industries of the West and the cotton industry of the South. Let us proceed to examine these contentions. SUGAR The Hon. Henry L. Stimson, formerly Governor General of the Philippine Islands and now Secretary of State, ably demonstrated in a statement before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives on April 17, 1929, that the free entry of Philippine sugar into the United States to-day does not, and can not, affect the price of sugar in the American market. An extract from his statement follows: " The proposed measure restricting sugar is entirely unnecessary to protect our American beet or cane sugar. The free entry of Philippine sugar into the United States to-day does not, and can not, affect the price of sugar in the American market. During the year 1928, 3,227,445 tons of foreign duty-paying sugar entered the United States; in 1929, 3,679,349 tons; and the average of such duty-paying sugar for the past five years has been far above 3,000,000 tons. So long as such duty-paying sugar enters the American market it fixes the price of that market. Inasmuch as practically all of this duty-paying sugar comes from Cuba, its price fixes the American price. That price is the market price of sugar in Cuba plus the amount of the duty paid upon Cuban sugar in the American customs. "It is admitted by the domestic sugar interests that the amount of domestic production can not be greatly or suddenly increased. Therefore, even if the free entry of Philippine sugar should be cut off entirely, the only effect would be to increase the amount of foreign sugar which would enter the American market, i. e. to sacrifice Philippine sugar to Cuban sugar. Roughly speaking, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 273 three-fifths of the sugar consumed in America to-day comes from foreign sources, nearly all of it Cuban; one-fifth from sugar produced in the continental limits of the United States; and the other one-fifth from its insular possessions, including Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. (Report of Department of Commerce Yearbook, 1928.) In 1928 the importation of dutyfree sugar from the Philippines into the United States amounted to 574,000 tons. If, as I shall show later, this amount can not be increased, except very slowly, it is manifest that the price of foreign duty-paying sugar, and not the price of Philippine sugar, will fix the American market price of sugar for an indefinitely long period to come. "This issue, therefore, does not rest between domestic sugar and Philippine sugar; domestic sugar is not, in any way, affected by free importation from the Philippines." The fear has been expressed that the production of sugar in the Philippines will rapidly increase. This fear is based on comparisons of present exports of sugar from the Philippine Islands with those between 1900 and 1909. Then the Philippine sugar industry was at low ebb, due to conditions in the Islands, and to the lack of a market for its sugar. In considering Philippine production, consideration must be given to the fact that in 1895, the year before the Filipino insurrection against Spain began, the Philippines exported 336,075 tons of sugar. All of that sugar was low-grade muscovado sugar, of a type which to-day can not be sold in the United States. That sugar was produced by crude methods, by which but about 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the juice was extracted from the cane. The quantity of sugar cane which would produce 336,075 tons of muscovado sugar would, if ground in modern sugar mills such as now are operating in the Philippines, give a production of approximately 560,000 tons. As Philippine sugar imported into' the United States in 1928 amounted to but 512,673 long tons, it is obvious that the Philippines are to-day producing but little more sugar cane than during the last years of Spanish rule. The increase in the production of Philippine sugar has been due to the modernization of the sugar industry, made necessary if that industry were to survive, and not to any material expansion of areas devoted to sugar cane. Land laws, lack of capital, and lack of labor adapted to) the growing of sugar indicate that there will be no increase in the production of sugar in the Philippine Islands during the next few years, except as may normally be expected from better agricultural methods. Dr. Arthur H. Rosenfeld, consulting technologist of the American Sugar Cane League, in a statement made in October, 1929, before sugar planters and businessmen who attended a luncheon given in his honor by the league in New Orleans, stated, as a result of his survey during an extended trip to sugarproducing countries, including Java, Philippines, Formosa, and Hawaii, that any increase in sugar production in those countries in the next few years will be counterbalanced by the normal increase in world consumption. He stated, in effect, that Hawaii, the Philippines, and Formosa are reaching their limit and that while an increase in the sugar tariff may draw some additional capital to the Philippines, conditions there are not favorable to excessive increases in production. He gave as his conclusion that Hawaii, the Philippines, and Formosa are not likely to be producing more than 1,000,000 tons of sugar each in the next 10 years and that with reasonable tariff protection for the United States sugar industry, he considered Louisiana a more attractive field for sugar investments than any of the countries mentioned. For further evidence on this point, attention is invited to the statement of the Hon. Henry L. Stimson above referred to, to the statement of Maj. Gen. Frank McIntyre, formerly Chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs and now representing the Philippine Government (Congressional Record, March 12, 1929), and to A Square Deal for the Philippine Islands, by Mr. J. M. Switzer, which was based upon his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives on February 25, 1929. Those statements and the statements of other unprejudiced observers demonstrate that Philippine sugar is not today hurting the sugar producer of the United States and that there is no danger of Philippine sugar hurting the sugar producer of the United States in the future. 92109-30 —PT 3 3 274 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPTNE ISLANDS COPRA AND COCONUT OIL Copra, the dried meat of the coconut, is the source of coconut oil. Copra is on the free list, but the United States tariff imposes a duty of 2 cents a pound on coconut oil imported from foreign countries. That duty has been in force since 1922. Coconut oil is extracted from copra in the Philippine Islands and also in the United States. Exports of copra from the Philippine Islands to the United States in 1928 amounted to $17.603,832. This was 78.1 per cent of the total exports of copra from the islands. Exports of coconut oil from the Philippine Islands to the United States amounted in 1928 to $23,239,520, or 98.9 per cent of the total. It is thus obvious that, because of the duty of 2 cents a pound imposed on coconut oil imported from foreign countries, practically the entire production of coconut oil in the Philippines is shipped to the United States, but that. on the other hand, a considerable part of the copra produced in the Philippines is shipped to other countries. Of the coconut oil imported into the United States, practically all comes from the Philippine Islands. On the other hand, in 1928, the United States imported 501,507,400 pounds of copra of which but 371,889,394 pounds, or 74 per cent, came from the Philippines. Coconut oil is used principally in the manufacture of soaps. It is but one of the many vegetable oils used for that purpose. The vegetable oil lmost used in the United States is cottonseed oil; it is principally used for the manufacture of edible products, such as lard companies, lard substitutes and table oils. The total production and imports of vegetable oils (except linseed), compared with the production and imports of coconut oil and the production of cottonseed oil (quantities average monthly in thousands of pounds) (figurefrom Survey of Current Business, U. S. I)epartment of Commerce, are asfollows: i Coconut oil Cottonseed oil Year Totai Quantity Per cent Per cent of total Quantity of total 1919.__ _ --- —------------------ -- 222, 577 41,384 18.6 ------- 1920 ___ --- —- -------------------------------- 189 210 28, 962 15.3 95,223 50.3 1921 — _- - - -------------------------- 156,371 25, 243 16.1 106,442 68.0 1922 - ---------------------------------------- 160, 064 34, 403 21.5 77.886 48.6 1923 ----- -------------------------------— _ 166, 380 34,817 20.9 81, 146 48.7 1924 ___ ---- ----- ------------------ 193, 825 34, 676 17.9 96,286 49.7 1925 -- ------------------------- 212, 289 36,731 12.6 125, 987 59.3 1926 _ --- ----------------------------- 237, 812 42, 154 17. 7 147,024 61.8 1927 _ --- —----- ------------------------------ 247, 720 48, 002 19.2 150, 563 60.8 1928 ------------------ --------------------------- 216, 540 50, 152 23.1 121,683 56.2 An examination of the above figures shows that of the total quantity of vegetable oils (except linseed) produced in and imported into the IUnited States, but from 15 to 20 per cent is coconut oil, while from 50 to 60 per cent is cottonseed oil, anI- 20 to 35 per cent is other vegetable oils. It also is evident that the increase ill the use of vegetable oils in the United States during the last 10 years has been principally due to large crops of cotton, which have made available larger quantities of cottonseed oil. The decrease in 1928 was due to a smaller cotton crop in 1927. Cottonseed oil when refined is used principally in the manufacture of lard compounds and lard substitutes. On the other hand, coconut oil, both crude and refined, is used about 60 per cent in the manufacture of soaps, about 28 per cent in the manufacture of oleomargarine, and about 10 per cent in the manufacture of candy and biscuits, and about 2 per cent for other minor purposes. The following table gives the production of refined cottonseed oil and refined coconut oil compared with the production of crude cottonseed oil and the production and imports of crude coconut oil (quantities averaged monthly ill thousands of pounds.) (Figures frmn Survey of Current Business, United States Department of Commerce): INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 275 Cottonseed oil Coconut oil Year Crude Refined Per ent Crude Refined Per cent refined refined 1920 ---------------------------- 95,223 81,645 85.7 28,962 15,495 53.5 1921 ------------------------------------- 106,442 99,659 88.2 25, 243 10, 223 40.5 1922 -._ --—, --- —---- _ — ------------ 77, 886 68,933 88.5 34,403 11,270 32. 8 1923 --- —--------------------------------- 81,146 75,878 93.5 34,817 14,365 41.2 1924 ----- -------------------—. ------- 96,286 88,056 91. 4 34,676 14, 477 41. 7 1925 ---------------------------------- 125,987 112,122 89.0 36, 731 16,427 44. 7 1926. ---- --- ----------—. --- —----- 147, 024 123, 079 83.7 42,154 19,269 45.7 1927 ---- - ----------------------------- 150,563 132, 741 88.2 48, 002 20,933 43.6 1928 --- —----- ---------- - 121, 683 110, 705 91.0 50, 152 24,659 49.1 _~~ ~ ~~~~~~~1 50_5 _459 4. From the above figures it is evident that of the total production of crude cottonseed oil about 90 per cent represents refined cottonseed oil, while but from about 40 to 45 per cent of the total production and imports of coconut oil is represented by refined coconut oil. Furthermore, it will be noted from the above figures that the increase in the average monthly production of refined cottonseed oil from 1920 to 1927 was 51,096,000 pounds, or 62.6 per cent, while the increase in the average monthly production of refined coconut oil from 1920 to 1927 was but 5,438,000 pounds, or but 35.1 per cent. That there has been a considerable increase in the use of vegetable oils in the United States can not be denied, but that increase can not be attributed to any material degree to coconut oil and copra. throughout the world the use for many purposes of vegetable fats has been increasing, and it is reasonable to suppose that, not only will the consumption of vegetable fats throughout the world increase, but that the world will become more and more dependent upon vegetable fats. DAIRY INTERESTS That this increasing use of vegetable fats in the manufacture of edible products has not adversely affected tie dairy interests of the country is shown by the following table, giving average monthly apparent consumption of butter and the production of oleomargarine (figures from survey of Current Business, United States Department of Commerce) from the years 1917 to 1928: Year Btt Oleomar- Year Butter OleomarYear Butter garine garine Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds 1917_ -- -------- 138,109,000 23,937,000 1923 --- —---------------- 155,564,000 18,839,000 1918 __ --- —- --- 123,796,000 29,217, 000 1924 --- ------------- 164,742,000 19, 294,000 1919 ---- ------ 127, 094,000 30, 733,000 1925 --- —--------------- 166, 359,000 19, 568, 000 1920 - - ----- 129,466, 000 29,957,000 1926_ —_ ------------- 173, 954, 000 20, 293,000 1921- - 143.811,000 17,840,000 1927__ --- —------- 174,056,000 23,042,000 1922- ----------- 149, 671,000 15,380,000 1928 _ --- —-------- 170, 647, 000 26, 374, 000 The above figures show that the increase in the production of oleomargarine has been extremely small when compared with the apparent consumption of butter. As to coconut oil, of the average monthly production in 1928 of 26,374,000 pounds of oleomargarine, but 13,321,000 pounds of refined coconut oil were used, which was but 7.8 per cent of the total apparent consumption of butter in 1928. If the increased production and consumption of vegetable oils were adversely affecting the dairy interests of the United States, the prices of butter as compared with the prices of other farm products would have been adversely affected. That the price of butter has not been so affected is shown by the following comparison of index numbers of the Bureau of Labor (base year 1926) for all products compared with farm products and butter (creamery 92 score) (Figures from Survey of Current Business, United States Department of Commerce): 276 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Butter ' Butter Farm Farm Year All Farm i Yar Farm Bu prducts Year All products productsAverage Index Averag Index Price, No. i Price No. 1913 ----- 69.8 1.5 $0.32 71.1 1924 ----- 98.1 100.0 $0.43 95.5 1914 --- —-- 68. 1 71. 2.30 66.7 1925 -- - 103. 5 109.8.45 100.0 1915 —.- - 69.5 71.5.30 66.7 j 1926 ----- 100.0 100.0.45 100.0 1916 - 85.5 84.4.34 75. 5 1927 --- — 95. 4 99. 4.47 104.4 1922 -....-: 96.7 93.8.41 91.1 1928 ----- 97.7 105.9.47 104.4 1923 ------ 100.6 98.6.47 104.4 The above statement shows that the price of butter is relatively higher than the composite price of all commodities. This would not be true were vegetable oils adversely affecting the dairy interests. If, however. the dairy interests were seriously affected by the increased production and consumption of vegetable oils, the imposing of duties on coconut oil and copra imported from the Philippine Islands would not remedy the situation, for the reason that about 60 per cent of the vegetable oils produced in and imported into the United States is cottonseed oil, the production of which increased more than 60 per cent in seven years, while of the coconut oil imported into and produced in the United States (less than 20 per cent of the total) but a small part is used in the manufacture of edible products. It is thus obvious that if the dairy interests desire further protection against the competition, of vegeable oils the only effective way to secure it would be not by harming trhe Philippines through the imposition of duties on Philippine products ii(d1 ruining several unrelated Philippine industries, but rather by increasing the internal-revenue taxes already imposed in the United States oni oleomargarine. The dairy interests of the United States should not overlook the fact that the Philippine Islands are not only producers but are also consumers. The Philippine Islandls to-day is the best customer of the United States for canned milk. The consumption of canned milk in the Philippines is increasing by leaps and bounds. Imports of dairy products into the Philippine Islands from the United States in 1908 amounted to but $104,942. In 1928 they amounted to $3,000,976, an increase of 2,860 per cent, and this increase only really began in 1916 and has been greatly accelerated since 1922. This actual and potential market for the dairy interests of the United States would be definitely lost if, as a result of the termination of the free-trade relationship between the United States and the Philippine Islands, duties were to be imposed in the Philippine Islands on the products of the United States. HOGS It has been contended that Philippine copra and coconut oil adversely affect the hog industry of the United States. Let us examine the facts. The production and exports of lard, compared with the production of lard compounds and lard substitutes, and with the production of refined cottonseed oil and of refined coconut oil follows (quantities average monthly in thousands of pounds) (figures from Survey of Current Business, United States Department of Commerce): Lard Production ~~~~_ _ __Year '! _ _ - Lard com - iYa Produc- pounds Refined Refined tion Exports Balance cottonseed coconut _ _j_ _ _ __ _ __ _oil oil 1921 ----... ---.____ --- —---- |. 114, 942 72,412 42,530 52,257 99,659 10,22 1922 -------— _.. -- 131, 261 63,913 67,348 65,348 68,933 11,27 1923 ----------------------— _ 164, 270 86,282 77,988 62,544 75,878 14, 3 1924 ----------------—. —. 160,219 78, 675 81,544 69,203 88,056 14, 47 1925 -------—. --- —-------- 120,979 57,402 63,577 96,052 112,122 16, 41 1926 --- —----------- 126,115 58,248 67,867 95,059 123,079 19, 2( 1927 --—. --- — -- —.. ---..- - -- 129,729 56, 775 72,954 98,180 132,741 20, 9 1928 --- —---------—... ----___ 145, 812 63,307 82,505 95,279 110,705 24, 6, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 277 So long as nearly 50 per cent of the entire production of lard in the United States is exported, and the production of refined cottonseed oil practically equals the production of lard, it is absurd to contend that the relatively small production of refined coconut oil can even remotely affect the price of hogs. If Philippine copra and coconut oil were not imported into the United States, Europe would take them. If there were any real competition between coconut oil and lard, and if Philippine coconut oil and copra were shut out of the United States, lard produced in the United States would still meet that competition in Europe. The contention that if Philippine copra and coconut oil were made dutiable on entry into the United States, the price of lard would be higher, is, therefore, absolutely without foundation in fact. COTTON GROWERS It has been contended by some cotton growers in the South that the free importation from the Philippine Islands of coconut oil and copra is adversely affecting their interests. It has been shown above that the large increase in the production of vegetable oils consumed in the United States has been due to larger crops of cotton, thus materially increasing the production of cottonseed oil. Furthermore, it has been shown that, while practically all cottonseed oil is used in the production of lard compounds, lard substitutes, cooking fats, and salad dressings, no coconut oil is used in the manufacture of these edible products. Crude coconut oil at times is higher in price than crude cottonseed oil; at times the two oils sell at the same price; and at times crude cottonseed oil is higher in price than crude coconut oil. Considering the much greater production of cottonseed oil, as compared with the production and imports of coconut oil, it is thus obvious that coconut oil is not a direct cmpetitor of cottonseed oil. Cottonseed, being a by-product, the prosperity of the cotton grower is dependent on the prices which he receives for both cotton and cottonseed. The follow — ing is a comparison of the price index numbers of farm products, as prepared by the United States Department of Labor, compared with the price index numbers of cotton and cottonseed combined (base year average 1909-1914): Cotton Cotton Year All and cot- Year All and cottonseed tonseed 1909-1914 -------------- 100 100 1921 ------- 118 101 1913 --- —-— 1 --- —---------- 100 97 1922. --- —------------------ 123 156 1914 --- —-------------- 102 85 1923 --- —- ----- --- 134 216 1915 ----------------- 100 78 1924 ----------------------- 134 211 1916..... --- — ------- 117 119 1925 ------------------ 147 177 1917 ----------------- -- 176 187 1926 ------------------------- 136 122 1918 ----------------- 200 245 1927 -------------------- 131 128 1919_ - ---------------- 209 247 1928 ---------------------- 139 152 1920 ------------------ 205 249 The above figures show that over a period of years the cotton grower has received for his cotton and cottonseed prices substantially higher on the whole than the average price of all farm products. As above stated, the people of the Philippine Islands are not alone producers but they also are consumers. In the year 1908, which was the year before free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States began, imports of cotton goods into the Philippine Islands from the United States amounted to but $662,033. In the year 1928 such imports amounted to $15,398,033, an increase of 2,362 per cent. A large part of these cotton goods was manufactured in the South. The consumption of cotton goods in the Philippine Islands will, with the continuation of free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States, steadily increase. The Philippine Islands to-day is the largest customer of the United States for cotton goods. If, however, free trade is discontinued, the Philippines will buy its cotton goods elsewhere. The above determines that the free entry of Philippine products into the United States is not harmful to the interests of the American people, and in particular of the American farmer. 278 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS On the other hand, as to coconut oil, the United States products to-day, in. eluding all coconut oil produced both in the Philippine Islands and in the United States, but 78 per cent of its total fat requirements for soap purposes; 22 per cent must be imported from foreign countries. A duty on coconut oil would, therefore, increase the cost of soap to consumers in the United States without increasing the prices of butter and cottonseed oil. II. THE EFFECT OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ON THE TRADE OF THE UNITED STATES WITII THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States became operative in 1909. The increase in imports into the Philippine Islands from the United States from 1908, the year before free trade was inaugurated, and 1928 is shown by the following statement: 19.0i8 I 192s Per cent 1908 1928 increase - __ Wheat flour -..... —... --- —............ --- — $530, 923 $4, 625, 128 871 Dairy products ------ ------------ 104, 942 3, 000,976 2, 860 Fish products --------------------------------- 138, 904 1,693,210 1,218 Other food products ---- - ---- -—... --- —------ 317. 906 3, 329, 934 1,047 Cotton goods. --- —----------------------------- ---- 662 033 15, 398, 033 2,362 Iron and steel and manufactures thereof-.....- -. --- —-------- 806, 109 15, 795, 785 1,959 Paperteel manufactures thereof.- ------- - 222, 743 2, 802, 521 1,258 Mineral oils te --- — —. -... --- —--. -----—.. -—.. -- 645, 834 7, 095, 274 1,098 Automotive vehicles and parts ------------------ 6, 511,173 ----- Other ------------------—. --- —------- 1, 672,442 23,606, 033 1, 412 Total ---------------- ---- --------—.. --- —. --- —---.. --- 5, 101, 836 83,858,067 1,643 The above statement shows that purchases by the Philippine Islands from the United States increased from $5,101,836 in 1908 to $83,858,067 ill 1928, an increase of 1,643 per cent. The Philippine Islands to-day are the best customer of the United States for cotton goods and for dairy products. The importation of wheat flour into the Philippine Islands from the United States during 1928 amounted to 766,000 barrels which was the product of approximately 3,500,000 bushels of wheat and was the harvest of approximately 200.000 acres of wheatland The consumption of dairy products in the Philippine Islands, anld particularly canned milk, is increasing rapidly. American agricultural produce, raw and manufactured, amounted to, about 35 per cent of the total imports into the Philippine Islands from the United States during 1928. The grownlg Philippine trade not alone benefits the producers of agricultural products, but it also greatly benefits industrial producers. It also should be noted that while the products of the Philippine Islands slipped to the United States are almost entirely raw products. the products imported into the Philippine Islands from the United States are almost entirely products which have been prepared for ultimate consumptioP and which, in many cases, have been highly manufactured, thus giving large employment to American labor. Let us proceed to analyze the effect on the sale of products of the United States to the Philippine Islands in the event that dutie. are ilmposed oil the products of the United States entering the Philippine Islands at the same rates as on the products of foreign countries. In 1908 the total imports of the Philippine Islands w-ere $29,186.120 of which tie United States supplied $5,101.836, or but 17 per cent of the total. In 192S the total imports into the Philippine Islands amounted to $134,656,898, of which the United States supplied $83,858,067, or 62 per cent. If duties were to be imposed on products of the United States entering the Philippine Islands at the same rates as on the products of foreign countries. the United States would sell practically no wheat flour, dairy products, cotton goods, iron and steel and manufactures thereof, and greatly reduced quantities of other products, which the Philippine Islands could purchase cheaper from foreign countries. Even assuming that the United States would INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 279 enjoy a larger percentage of the total imports into the Philippines than in 1908, when the United States supplied but 17 per cent of the total imports, it is extremely doubtful whether the percentage of total imports from the United States would exceed 25 per cent. It has been shown elsewhere that if duties were to be imposed in the United States on the products of the Philippine Islands, the value of Philippine exports would decline about 37 per cent. It is therefore estimated that in the event of the termination of the present free-trade relations between the United States and the Philippine Islands, Philippine imports from all countries would decline to not more than $80,000,000 a year. If the United States were to get 25 per cent of such business, the total would therefore be but about $20,000,000 a year, as against about $84,000,000 a year at present, or a decline of $64,000,000 a year If the Philippine question is to be considered from the point of view of selfinterest, it is thus necessary to consider that the Filipino people are not alone producers but also consumers and that the loss of the trade advantages enjoyed by the United States in the Philippine Islands will mean a decrease in sales by the United States to the Philippine Islands of approximately $64,000,000 a year. It is also necessary to consider not alone the present loss to the United States from the loss of the Philippine market but, in view of the rapidly increasing consumption of the products of the United States in the Philippines, the tremendous potential market which also will be lost and at a time when elsewhere the producers of the United States will be facing keen competition with Europe in the other markets of the world. This loss may be shown in another way. Per capita imports (excluding rice) in the Philippine Islands in 1908 were $2.81, of which imports from the United States were but 62 cents per capita. In 1928 per capita imports had increased to $10.49, an increase of 373 per cent, while the per capita imports from the United States had increased to $6.65, an increase of 1,072 per cent. It is also well to consider that while imports into the Philippine Islands from the United States increased from 1908 to 1928, 1,643 per cent, exports to the United States during the same period increased but 1,106 per cent. Selfish interests are advocating Philippine independence that duties may be imposed on products of the Philippine Islands imported into the United States. If the question of Philippine independence is to be debated on the basis of the supposed self-interest of one group, what of the self-interest of other groups-farmers, laborers, manufacturers-who are greatly benefiting by the present relationship under which the products of the United States are admitted free of duty into the Philippine Islands? The Philippine Islands are to-day a large and important market for the products of the United States. As the Philippine Islands progress economically and as Filipino purchasing power increases, the American farmer and American industrial labor will increasingly benefit by present free-trade relations. If economic self-interest is to be the deciding factor in the determination of Philippine policy of the United States, then independence should now be denied the Philippines, that the present free-trade relations may be continued and further developed. III. THE EFFECT ON THE; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF AN EARLY GRANT OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT FREE TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND THE UNITED STATES It has been shown that the American farmer and American labor are not adversely affected by the free imports of Philippine products into the United States. It has been shown, on the contrary, that American producers, both agricultural and industrial, are benefited by the free imports of the products of the United States into the Philippine Islands. The effect on the Philippine Islands of an early grant of independence and the termination of the present free trade relations between the Philippine Islands and the United States remains to be considered. The following is an estimate of the decline in the value of Philippine exports if the United States-Philippine free trade relations were discontinued (basis 1928 Philippine exports): 280 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ta To United Estimated States I decline Hemp --------------------------------------------------—. — $26,593,606 $9,527,045 --- —--------- Coconuts: Coconut oil - ------------------------- 23,489,172 23,239,520 $23,239,520 Copra meal ------- ------------------------ 2,886,137 358,853 2,886,137 Dessicated coconut ------------ - 3, 723,585 3, 718,268 3, 500,000 Copra --- — ---------------------------------- 22,542, 341 17,603,832 (24,500,000) Sugar. --- —------- -------------------------------- Tobacco: Unmanufactured --- —---------------------------- Cigars -------------------------------------- Cigarettes --------------------— __ ------------- Cordage ----- ------------------------------------------ - Embroideries ---------------- --------------- Hats --- ------------------------------------------- Lumber ---------------------------------- ------------ Buttons, pearl — I --- -------------------------- Total estimated decline --- —---------------------------- Total exports -------------- ---------------- Decline, 36.7 per cent. 52,641,235 44,920,473 5,125, 657 47,542,939 45, 691, 232 40,000,000 3,029,632 15,896 ------- 4, 765, 639 3, 855, 672 3, 500, 000 223,412 7, 651 --- —------- 8, 018, 683 3, 879, 219 3, 500,000 1,775,435 721,120 200,000 4, 396, 236 4, 356, 599 4. 250,000 3, 358, 962 2, 277,125 2,000,000 3,126, 500 1,637, 691 1,500,000 385, 852 385, 324 385,852 i!i ------------- - -----------— 1 56, 961, 509...... ---..... --- —--------- 155,054,546 The reasons for the above estimate are as follows: Hemp.-There will be no decline for the reason. that hemp is, and always has been since American occupation, on the free list of the United States, and as it does not compete with any American products, it probably will continue on the free list. Coconuts.-Exports of coconuts are in four forms —oconut oil. copra meal, desiccated coconut, copra. The total of exports from the Philippines of those products in 1928 was $52,641,235, of which $44,920,473 went to the United States. The estimlated decline in the value of those products is $5,125,657. If Philippine coconut oil were made dutiable on entering tie United States. the industry in the Philippine Islands would be wiped out, for the reason that it could not compete with producers of coconut oil in the United States, even though Philippine copra were used, while other markets are generally closed. This would carry with it copra meal, a by-product. On the other hand, the copra used in the manufacture of coconut oil would be available for export and would be exported either to the United States or to foreign countries, although values might be slightly lower if duties were imposed on copra entering the United States. The lecline would thus be the difference between the export value of copra used in the manufacture of oconut oil in the Philippines and the export values of coconut oil and copra meal. If desiccated coconut were made dutiable on entering the United States. the industry would be wiped out, although the coconuts used in making desiccated coconut would be made into copra. It is thus estimated that exports of copra would increase about $24,500,000, and that the net decli]:e in the vallue of all coconut exports would be $5,125,657. SUGAR Exports of sugar in 1928 amounted to $47,542,939, of which $45,691,232 went to the United States. If Philippine sugar were made dutiable on entering the United States, the Philippine sugar industry would be almost completely wiped out. While some muscovado sugar is at present being sold in oriental markets, the quantity which can be sold is small and probably can not be greatly increased, except at prices much below production costs. Furthermore, Japan, which was formerly a market for Philippine muscovado sugar, is no longer open to Philippine sugar, as a result of the development by Japan of its own sugar industry in Formosa. Java, with its lower wage scales and living standards and its highly scientific agriculture, developed over a long INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 281 period of time, produces sugar far cheaper than it can now be produced in the Philippines. A few sugar producers might survive, but it is conservatively estimated that if the United States imposes a duty on Philippine sugar, the exports of sugar from the Philippine Islands will decline in the sum of at least $40,000,000 a year. TOBACCO As the Philippines do not ship much tobacco to the United States, the decline in the export value of tobacco products would be but about $3,500,000. In this connection it should be noted that imports of tobacco and tobacco products into the Philippine Islands from the United States now about equal the exports of Philippine tobacco products to the United States. Among the minor industries of the Philippines are the household industries producing embroideries and hats, which would be affected to the extent of about $6,250,000. As total exports in 1928 amounted to $155,054,546, and as the estimated decline in the value of Philippine exports is $56,961,509 or 36.7 per cent, such a decline would be a serious blow to the Philippine Islands and to the people thereof. The Philippine Islands are undeveloped economically. Standards of living.relatively are low because of low purchasing power. While the people are steadily progressing economically, and, have made great progress since the establishment in 1909 of free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States, the road yet to be traveled to the goal of economic stability and economic independence is long. Practically all clothing materials, metals and their manufactures, industrial fuels, paper, and similar essentials to higher standards of living must be imported. Per capita imports may, therefore, be taken as indicators of living standards and of progress. As the purchasing power of the dollar has changed greatly since the beginning of the century, to get a true picture it is necessary to adjust actual values to allow for such changes. A statement of per capita imports (not including rice, imports of which are now practically nill), adjusted so as to eliminate fluctuations in the purchasing power of the dollar, follows: 1901 (civil government established) __ --- —---- --------- - $4.31 1908 (year before free trade) ---- ------ — ___ -----— ___- 3.12 1910 (year following free trade) ------------------------- 4.98 1912 (pre-war peak) -------------------------------- 5. 51 1916 (political uncertainty, Jones bill finally passed) -------- ------ 3.15 1921 (peak of inflation) -------------------------------- 6. 71 1922 (reaction) -------- ---------------- ------ 4. 67 1924 (recovery) __ --- —----------------—. --- —-- 5. 66 1925 (progress) -________ --- —------------------------ 6.00 1926 (progress) ------------------------------- 6.32 1927 (progress) --------------— ____ --- —----- 6.41 1928 (progress) ---------------— 7 ---- ------- 7109 The above statement shows that per capita well-being actually declined until free trade was established in 1909; that it advanced rapidly immediately thereafter; that it dropped sharply and alarmingly when an early grant of independence was agitated in Congress in 1915; that it fluctuated during and immediately following the Great War; and that thereafter it steadily and rapidly advanced. The total is, however, very small. No country can import more than it exports. As exports would, if free trade between the Philippine Islands and the United States were terminated, decline about 37 per cent, imports would decline at least an equal percentage, and probably more. It was pointed out above that practically all the essentials to higher standards of living must be imported. A decline in imports of about 37 per cent would, therefore, reduce the people of the islands to an economic status similar to that prevailing during the early part of the present century. The annual per capita income of the people of the Philippine Islands is to-day estimated at not more than $37.50, or about $190 per family per annum. Low as per capita incomes are to-day, ther are at least three times those at the beginning of the century. 282 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Government revenue generally represents the limit of the tax-paying capacity of a people. as well as a true index of their economic position. The percentage of per capita taxes to per capita income in the Philippine Islands is practically the same as that in the United States. The following table shows the economic position of the Filipino people: Area Govern- Area Govern(suare mentreve- Country (square Popula- ment revetion m tent reve- tion miles)nue tion mnue iles) nue Philippines. 114,000 12,500,000 $40,000,000 Austria __-. 32,352 7,000,000 $253,000.000 Bulgaria --- —-- 39,491 5,000,000 54, 000,000 Yugoslavia -___ 96,134 12,000,000 214, 000,000 Switzerland ----, 15, 945 4,000,000! 74,000,000 Greece ------- 49, 000 6,300,000 126, 000,000 Portugal 35. 490 6,100, 000 1 91,000,000 Netherlands - - 13, 205 7,500,000 299,000,000 Denmark-. - 17,149 3,500,000 110,000,000 Belgium ------- 11,753 8,000,000 319, 000,000 Hungary. --- —- 35,790 i 8,000,000 250,000,000 _____________ __ j__ i_______ __ 8, 000 000 Ill considering the above table, consideration must be given to the fact that tlhe Philippine Islands pay nothing for the maintenance of an army or a navy or for diplomatic and consular representatives abroad. An independent Philippines would have to assume those expenses, and at a time when, because of lowered purchasing power, government revenues would be lower. If an indpendent Philippine government were to borrow money abroad, the cost would be much higher than now. for the bonds of the Philippine Islands have been issued under the authority of Congress and are, according to official opinion, morally guaranteed by the United States, as well as being tax exempt in the United States. The additional costs of an independent Philippine government, at a time when revenues would be reduced, would make inevitable a substantial reduction in the expenditures for sanitation and for education, and it is in those fields that the Filipino people take a real and a justifiable pride in their accomplishmellnts under the sovereignty of the United States. When the United States acquired the Philippine Islands they assumed a trust-that of developing the Filipino peolde for self-government. That trust can not le executed by social and political development alone for economic developmenlt and( eco.nonlic stabllili-ty re t!e esselntiml foulndations of social and political security. President McKinley stated: "We shall cout1 nue as we have begun * * to foster the industry in trade and agriculture and in every way in our liwer to make this people whom Providence has brought within our jurisdiction * * feel that it is * * * thir welfare and not our1 gain that we lire seeking to elinhance." Is this trust which we assumed, and whic( h we Ihave up i to the resent time faithfully executed, now to be abandoned because a few mlisinfonred people believe they are losing ia iew paltry dollars? Is tie United States. for that reason, now going to overwhlelml the Filipino people with ec onomic disaster. which an early grant of independence to the Philippine Isllands surely will do,, The CHAIIrMAN. Mr. John H. Pardee. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. PARDEE, PRESIDENT PHILIPPINE RAILWAY, NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. Give us your name. address, and business. Mr. PARDEE. My name is John H. Pardee. 33 Liberty Street, N. Y. I am president of the Philippine Railway, having steam railways on the islands of Cebu and Panay, with an investment of $8,000,000. I am also president of Manila Electric Co., with an investment of $25,000,000, owning and operating the tramways and busses in Manila and also the electric light and power facilities not only in Manila but various cities and towns between Dagupan, 125 miles north of Manila, south through the island of Luzon to Lucena, eastward to the Pacific. We are now spending upward of $4.000. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 283 000 more in developing and constructing a hydroelectric plant on the Botocan River about 80 miles southeast of Manila, and electrical current will be distributed over various connecting transmission lines to the various communities of our system. The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you at that point, Mr. Pardee, to ask how much of this capital that you refer to, of $33,000,000, is American capital? Mr. PARDEE. All of the $25,000,000 is. With respect to the $8,000,000 in connection with the Philippine Railway, some of those bonds are held in Holland and in England, but not a majority of them. The CHAIRMAN. But the $25,000,000 is all American capital? Mr. PARDEE. And the $4,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. Owned in this country? Mr. PARDEE. Yes. This investmentThe CHAIRMAN. When did you start-will you come to that? Mr. PARDEE. This investment, made since 1904 at the earnest request of the United States Government through Mr. Taft, Secretary of War, for the development of Manila and surrounding territory. now totals upward of $30,000,000 and is the largest wholly American private investment in the islands. As distinguished from banking and trading concerns, this investment is permanent and can not be taken out. I have visited the islands eight times since 1915, spending from two to four months on each trip, and believe I understand some of the problems arising from the present relationship between the Philippines and the United States, not only from the point of view of the Filipinos but from our own. Most of the prominent Filipino leaders and men of affairs are friends of mine and I am their friend. We have discussed frankly and frequently affairs political and otherwise, and my position and beliefs are well known. When the United States by the treaty of Paris assumed the ownership and control of the Philippines it assumed duties and responsibilities which were very grave and serious. It guaranteed, really, to the world at large the permanent peace of the Philippines both within and without. It then told the Filipinos that it would protect them, educate them, develop their country, train them in government, and help them make a nation for themselves under the sovereignty of the United States. The Filipino people are wards of the United States, and when our Government assumed the duties of guardian and war, it can not surrender nor give up such trust until that trust has been fully fulfilled. In other words, irrespective of whether it should have been undertaken in the first place or not, the fact remains that we did take on a job, it is only partially done, and the great United States of America can not and will not welch now. One. need but glance at the international political situation in the Far East and it is perfectly evident that the United States can not terminate its contract with the Philippines even if it possibly might be very anxious to do so. If it did terminate its relations it would receive the condemnation of the world. We of the Manila Electric Co. stand upon the principle that we. have no interests in the Philippines that are disassociated with the 284 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS best interests of the Filipino people. What is beneficial to them is beneficial to us; what is detrimental to them is detrimental to us. Therefore, we are truly interested in the progress and prosperity of the Filipino people. The separation of the Philippines from the United States will be a deathblow to the welfare of the Filipino people. It means the cessation of free trade with the United States. which, in turn, means the destruction of the major industries of the Philippines and the collapse of its economic structure. The resultant situation will be unemployment, poverty, depreciation of values, upset of social institutions, and weakening of government. America has not done anything to drive the Filipinos to assume such uncalled for sacrifices and simply because some Filipinos say that they are willing to undergo such penalties is no reason why their guardian should permit them. It is encouraging to note, however, that there is a growing realization in the Philippines of the grave economic consequences of separation from the United States and that the Filipino leaders are urging their people to give proper valuation to these consequences. In my opinion, the most impressive but oft-forgotten fact concerning the economic position of the Philippines is that the major portion of its national production is exportable surplus. In other words, the Philippines is a country dependent on overseas markets for its prosperity. To place the Philippines on the basis of no protection and in competition with the neighboring tropical countries which produce similar products it is necessary to reduce the standard of living of the Filipinos to a much lower level. This will result in the undoing of the 30 years of work by the United States in the Philippines of social improvement, economic amelioration, and establishment of democratic institutions. I understand that the present movement to grant independence to the Philippines is inspired by the alleged competition of certain Philippine products and that this is being done in the name of American agriculture. First. Sugar competes only with and displaces Cuban sugar. It affects neither the market nor the price of American sugar. Second. Coconut oil is not produced here and can only possibly compete in margarine. A tariff would only result in higher prices for soap to farmers and everyone, and the price of margarine to the poor people. Third. Hemp: hemp is only produced in the Philippines, and we want it. Fourth. Tobacco; unimportant. Fifth. Dairy products; none. Sixth. lanlufactured products. Some hats and embroideries: unimportant. On the other hand, American agriculture is greatly benefited by a protected market for its wheat and flour and dairy products of all kinds. American apples go to the Philippines in quantities. American industry has also a protected market for its manufatctured goods of all kinds, particularly textiles. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 285 I fail to see how American agriculture is damaged in any respects. Other nations all have protected colonial possessions furnishing tropical products and we have none except the Philippines, and why cast them adrift, penalize ourselves, and do untold damage to them? On the question of changing our relations with the Philippines,, one must take into account certain pertinent and vital considerations, such as (a) the welfare of the Filipino people to whom we owe especial obligations; (b) American industry and American shipping which are interested in the Philippines as a market. On that point, I have not the data, but I presume it will be supplied: to you. Probably it will mean the subsidence of the American merchant fleet on the Pacific. (c) The American capital in the Philippines, $250,000,000, which relies on the continued protection of the United States; (d) the commercial and political position of the United States as a Pacific power; and (e) the unstabilizing effect on the Far East of America's withdrawal which may place in jeopardy the peace of the world. Weighing the pros and cons of the independence question from the standpoint of the United States alone, it is unthinkable that our Government will make the great mistake of hauling down the American flag in the Philippines. From the standpoint of the Filipinos I am sure intelligent and circumspective patriotism and the urge of national self-preservation will stay their desire to separate from the United States. Let me say, in conclusion, that we as a people have done a great piece of constructive humanitarian work for the Philippines, which has been appreciated by the Filipinos. That noble experiment shall not be ended ignobly by sneaking away from our duties and our responsibilities. The CHAIRMAN. HOW many times have you been to the Philippines Mr. PARDEE. Eight times. The CHAIRMAN. When was your last visit Mr. PARDEE. I returned in the latter part of June. The CHAIRMAN. Of last year? Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How long were you there at that time? Mr. PARDEE. I was there about four months; from the ist of October to the 1st of December, and from the middle of January until the middle of March. The CHAIRMAN. On these various trips have you become acquainted with the leading Filipino business men? Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you talked with them privately about independence? Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. If you will permit me I would like to state my position. I assume that you are leading up to my position. Independence is a political question in the Philippines. All Filipinos are for independence politically, from a political point of view. The government of the Filipinos themselves is not a complete government. While, as I understand it, 98 per cent of the offices are held by Filipinos, yet they do not have the direction of that govern 286 INI)EPENDENCE FORI THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ment, and all depends upon the Governot General. In other words we say that they are running the government now. They are, from the standpoint of the machinery, if that is a correct phrase. But the responsibility is not theirs. The responsibility is ours, and a chamber of commerce, or any body of Filipinos gathered together. will pass resolutions for independence. Our present government over there is unsatisfactory from a very great many points of view. One is that the Filipinos practically have no responsibility. The Governor General has the responsibility, and at the same time has not the power to be in absolute command. That makes it difficult. The Filipinos object to it. I object to it, and a very great many Americans object to it, and a great deal of the troubles and criticisms come from that fact. I am in favor of Senator Vandenberg's bill, or that part of it which proposes to give them more autonomy in government-in other words, give them more responsibility of government. I am not in favor of the terms or the application of the tariff. and if I may be permitted to say so, the application of the tariff gradually reminds me of the story of the man who cut off his dog's tail an inch at a time so that it would not hurt him so much. That is not the way to do it. More autonomy in economics will not correct it. When it comes to the period, there are more things to be taken care of before the Filipino nation becomes independent, than merely economic preparation. We must all realize that the Filipinos. as I have before stated, have not had the full responsibility of running the government. They have run it under the direction of the Governor General. I am in favor of giving them more authority in running their government. The CIHAIRMAN. How much more? Mr. PARDEE. The authority to elect their own chief executive. Senator JOHNSON. Is that the limit of the autonomy that you would grant them, to a greater degree than they have at the present time? Mr. PARDEE. Of course, retaining in the United States, or in the power of the President, all those things that are retained now by the Jones law-reservations with respect to naval bases and things of that kind; the power of the President to disapprove legislation on certain matters therein provided; and the power in the President of removal of their chief executive for malfeasance in office. Senator JOHNSON. Your idea of autonomy, then, is simply in the personality of the Governor General, is it not? Mr. PARDEE. Not the personality of the Governor General; but to do away with our Governor General, who assumes the responsibility of running that government. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you would give them, virtually, statehood, in permitting them to elect their own governor. Mr. PARDEE. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. But placing them under the tutelage of the President, and giving him the power to remove the Governor General for cause. Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you give the Congress any responsibility in regard to their laws? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 287 Mr. PARDEE. Yes; they would have to form a constitution, following Senator Vandenberg's bill, if I understand it correctly, and that constitution would have to be satisfactory to the Congress of the United States and to the President of the United States. All of their laws would have to conform to the principles of our Constitution and to the principles of their constitution. Senator JOHNSON. I come back to my original question. The autonomy that you would grant them, in greater degree, then, would be the mere selection of a Governor General. There would be no more power in the Filipinos than they have to-day, practically, would there Mr. PARDEE. Yes. They would make their own laws. Senator JOHNSON. Subject to our approval? Mr. PARDEE. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. Subject to the desire of the President to see that everything was done well and that the Governor General performed his duties faithfully, and the like. You would insist on all that. Mr. PARDEE. Yes; but the political situation would be entirely changed. Senator JOHNSON. By the mere election of a Governor General? Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Do you say that-if you will pardon me-as a matter of your own opinion, or do you say it from talking with those in the Philippines with whom you have come in contact? Mr. PARDEE. I have talked with many of them in the Philippines, and I have talked with a great many able men in the United States on this question, and discussed it at great length. In 1924 or 1925, the Weeks bill, or your billSenator JOHNSON. No; it was not mine. I introduced it solely by request, with the statement in the Record at that time, that it was done at the instance of General Weeks. Mr. PARDEE. I know; but I am simply identifying that bill. That embodied our ideas at that time. Senator JOHNSON. You spoke of the current sentiment among the Filipinos as against the cry for independence. Mr. PARDEE. I do not think there is any question that there is that sentiment. I can not give you specific instances. Senator JOHNSON. I do not ask for that, because I would not wish you to name those with whom you have talked, but you do feel, and you do know that there is such a current sentiment? Mr. PARDEE. I am very certain of it. Senator JOHNSON. So that if the Filipinos themselves spoke confidentially respecting the subject, you think there would be wide diversion, and probably a very great sentiment against full independence? Mr. PARDEE. I think so. Senator JOHNSON. Do you think that sentiment would be so great as to exceed the sentiment for independence? Mr. PARDEE. I believe that if further autonomy in government were given to the Filipino people, and our relations remained the same otherwise-that is, free trade-they would have that experience where they had the full responsibility during a period of 30 years, 288 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS and at the end of that time they would not desire to withdraw from the general sovereignty of the United States. Senator JOHNSON. But, Mr. Pardee, you do rwt give them full responsibility. You give them, by granting them merely the right of election of a Governor General under the circumstances you indicateMr. PARDEE. The provisions for control or sovereignty represent the same sovereignty that rests upon the Senate and the Congress, practically. Senator JOHNSON. That is, you would give them a sort of statehood-but it would not be a statehood, because it would not rise to the dignity of that. I can see in your plan nothing else than a mere election by which there would be substituted for an appointed governor one they had selected. Mr. PARDEE. There would immediately be formed in the Philippines two distinct political parties, the same as there are here, over the election of the chief executive officer and his assistants or his cabinet. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions to be asked of Mr. Pardee? Senator JOHNSON. I think I have completed. Senator HAWES. Mr. Pardee, do you care to make a clear-cut statement on the matter of independence? Are you opposed to it or in favor of it? Mr. PARDEE. I am not opposed to it at the proper time. The burden of saying when that proper time comes rests upon the United States Government, on Congress; and when sufficient time, has elapsed so that the Filipinos, as a nation, can properly take their place in the world of nations, with benefit to themselves, and without detriment to themselves, I am in favor of indepedence. Senator JOHNSON. Has that time arrived now? Mr. PARDEE. No, sir; not in my opinion. Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion how long will it be before that time would arrive. in the process of evolution that you have observed? Mr. PARDEE. My opinion is that if Congress will give to the Filipino people the government that I have outlined, a more autonomous government, and will go further. if they can-under our democratic institutions I aml not sure that Congress can, because Congress can not legislate for the future-but if it were possible to banish the independence question for 30 years, at the end of that time the Philippines would be prosperous, and it would be of great advantage to the United States. We will have finished our job there, or should have finished our job there, and when that time comes my opinion is that the Filipino people will not wish to separate from the United States. Senator HAWES. If you put it off 30 years we will never have it. Mr. PARDEE. What is that? Senator HAWES. If they have 30 years to think it over, at the end of 30 years they will not ask for independence. Mr. PARDEE. That is my opinion. The CHAIRMAN. Would you be in favor of a law which should state that at the end of 30 years there should be held a plebescite? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 289 Mr. PARDEE. I am not sure whether it would be wise to put it in or not. I am not particular on that point. I think at that time it could be determined whether there should be a plebescite, and without any question the Filipino people would be very much better qualified to vote on that question at that time than they would in the near future. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think American or foreign capital is likely to go into the islands in any quantity unless this question is definitely settled? Mr. PARDEE. You mean so far as complete independence is concerAed? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. PARDEE. No; I do not think that-that is, not on that basis. I do think that if Congress will say "We are going to extend this autonomous government, or further autonomy in government, and during the period of 30 years or upward of 30 years, we are not going to discuss the independence question," then American capital would go there. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that unless Congress does give a definite period of 30 years more, on a probationary status, under such autonomy as you have outlined, there is any likelihood that capital will flow into the Philippines? Mr. PARDEE. Some capital will go into the islands. We are putting in some now, in the face of this earnest effort for independence, because we do not believe that independence will be granted. We do not see how the United States Government can do it at this time. The CHAIRMAN. If you thought that independence were going to be granted at this time, would you be in favor of putting in any more capital? Mr. PARDEE. No; for the reason that we would not need the additional facilities. The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Mr. PARDEE. Because business would drop off, and we would have more facilities than we needed. In other words, when it came to building a 15,000-horsepower hydroelectric plant, we would not need it at all. Our present plants would take care of it. There would not be the growth. The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, then, what would be the effect on general business in the Philippines of the granting of independence, as provided in the King bill? Mr. PARDEE. The Filipino people, to form a nation and to go out into the company of nations internationally, have no army nor navy. They have no state department, nor international representatives. They have no means of assuming all the other burdens that go with an independent nation. In order to provide those facilities for performing as a nation, it would be necessary to expend a very large amount of money in addition to what they are expending now, and there is no way that they can raise that money. The income per capita is low. Taxes per capita are low, but in fairly good proportion to the per capita income. It is difficult for the Filipinos to pay their taxes now, and if additional taxes had to be imposed, it would be, perhaps, almost impossible. 92109-30-PT 3 ---4 290 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMAN. In addition to the tax situation, and in addition to the necessity of raising additional taxes, which, of course, would depend, in a certain degree, upon whether their neutrality were guaranteed by other nations, in so far as the necessity of providing any army and navy is concerned-outside the question of the necessity of raising additional taxes, and the difficulty of the people already taxed paying more taxes, what would be the effect on business in general, in so far as you are able to anticipate it? Mr. PARDEE. My opinion is that if they had to compete with the Far East in the production of their products, their standard of living would go down. The amount of money which each one earns would be considerably less. They would have less to spend. They could not enjoy some of the proper luxuries, as I may term them, now. They could forego them, but they would spend less money, and there would necessarily be less trade. The CHAIRMAN. What are you proposing to do with this new 15,000-horsepower hydroelectric plant that you are developing? Mr. PARDEE. We will transmit it 80 miles to our main station at Manila and distribute it north and south along our line. The CHAIRMAN. What will be its chief use-for domestic or industrial purposes? Mr. PARDEE. For domestic purposes, largely, although there is a considerable power in Manila. In some of the other cities power is not a very large item, although there is power sold in every hamlet, almost. The CHAIRMAN. IS it your belief, then, that with the granting of independence the ability of the people to put electricity into their homes would be so reduced that they would not require this power? Is that the thought? Mr. PARDEE. Yes, sir. There is no question about it in my mind. Senator HAwES. Mr. Pardee, is this investment of American capital, to the extent of $33,000.000. a profitable investment? Have you made money or lost money? Mr. PARDEE. On the Philippine Railway, it is not profitable. That was built at the earnest request of the government, and the government guarantees the interest on those bonds. The bonds are now worth about 29 in the market. Senator HAWES. It has not been profitable, then? Mr. PARDEE. That has not been profitable. We put the railroad on the wrong island. The CHAIR:MAN. Who was responsible for requesting that? Mr. PARDEE. I do not want to tell. The CHAIRIAN. I want to know whether it was the Amnerican Government or not. Mr. PARDEE. No; I do not think that it was. It was decided in the early days, in 1904 and 1905, and it evidently appeared to the people, both Filipinos and the United States Government officials. that one of these railroads should be placed on the Island of Cebu. Cebu is a long, narrow island, and we compete with a good road about 500 feet away, and the sea, about 700 feet away. When a Filipino has three chickens to take down to the city of Cebu to sell. if he rides on the railroad and pays any fare at all he has nothing left. Consequently, he either walks or goes down in a boat on the sea. They have a sugar plantation down there now, so that the -INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 291 earnings of that railroad are going up. The branch on Penay Island runs from Iloilo to Capiz, right through the center of the island, and that is being developed very largely for sugar. It is:about earning the interest on the bonds that would be allocated to that branch. Senator HAWES. Mr. Pardee, what use would the Philippines have:for a navy? You spoke of the cost of a navy. Mr. PARDEE. They are entirely surrounded by water, and they would have more use for a navy than they would for an army. Senator HAWES. It would be perfectly useless, would it not? Senator JOHNSON. It would not be necessary under the Kellogg pact, anyway. Senator HAWES. With respect to this expense for a navy and an:army, that would burden the Philippines, I can not quite understand that. They would not expect to compete with Japan in respect of a navy, would they? What would they use the army for? Mr. PARDEE. Well, they have an army now of the National Guard, or the constabulary. I do not know how many men of the Regular American Army are usually in the Philippines. Senator HAwEs. About 3,000, I think. Mr. PARDEE. They keep that number up pretty well, because it is cheaper for the American Government to support them there than it is in the United States, and all the men are very anxious to go. Senator HAWES. They are very anxious to retain American sovereignty, too, so that they can go. Mr. PARDEE. I am sure about that. Senator HAWES. One of our witnesses testified that there was far more disorder in Chicago than there was in all the Philippines. Mr. PARDEE. I should imagine that was true. Senator HAWES. Then we really do not need 3,000 American troops over there, do we, except that it is a nice place to drill, and all that sort of thing? Mr. PARDEE. And a cheap place. Senator HAWEs. And a cheap place. Mr. PARDEE. It saves money for the American Government. The CHAIRMAN. Most of those troops are Filipinos, are they not? Mr. PARDEE. Over there? Senator HAWES. I understand they are about 50-50. Mr. PARDEE. The Philippine Scouts are entirely Filipinos. Senator HAWES. But that is a part of the Regular Army. Mr. PARDEE. That is a part of the Regular Army. The CHAIRMAN. You were speaking of the constabulary, were you not, a few minutes ago? Mr. PARDEE. NO; I was speaking of our Artillery, Infantry, and Cavalry. The CHAIRMAN. About half of that is composed of Filipinos at the present time. Senator HAWES. It is about 50-50 at the present time. Mr. PARDEE. Only the Philippine Scouts. The Philippine Scouts are a part of the American Regular Army. All the other companies over there, or brigades, or whatever they are, are Regular Army troops. Senator HAWES. Mr. Pardee, the Philippines are about 30 hours from Japan, I believe, and 21 days from America. 292 INI)EPENDENCE FOR TIHE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. PARDEE. It depends on what you call Japan. If you call Formosa Japan, it is only three or four hours, or something like that. It is 1,200 miles from Yokohama to Manila. Senator HAWES. You do not anticipate that the Filipinos, if given their independence, would try to set up an army and navy to compete with Japan, do you? Mr. PARDEE. Oil. no. I simply mentioned the Army and Navy in reference to their own affairs. It certainly would cost some money along that line. whatever it was. They would certainly have better judgment than to try to compete with Japan. Senator HAWES. Just one other question, Mr. Chairman. From what you have said. you do think there are some changes that Congress should make that would be helpful to the Filipino people in the matter of their government? Mr. PARDEE. I do, along the line of greater autonomy. Senator HAWES. Then you are of the opinion that if independence were put off for 30 years, they would not want it at that time? Mr. PARDEE. With further autonomy? Senator HAWES. Yes: so that putting it off 30 years means that we are going to keep the islands permanently. That would be the result, in your opinion. Mr. PARDEE. I think it would be a grand object to achieve. The CHAIRAMAN. If they do not get autonomy, however, the movement for independence is likely to increase rather than diminish. is it not? Mr. PARDEE. It is bound to, because there is no other issue amongo the Filipino people except independence. Senator HAwES. I was just going to ask you, Mr. Pardee, if this is not true: A vote to put it off for 30 years is a vote against Philippine independence. AMr. PARDEE. Not necessarily. Senator HAWES. I thought you said that was your opinion. You have been giving your opinion, that if we extend it for 30 years, the Filipinos would not want it. Mr. PARDEE. Yes: but I might be wrong. Senator HAwES. You might be wrong in a great many of these conclusions. MA1. PARDEE. Abollutely, sir. The C( AIRMAN. You q(ualified that, as I recollect. by saying that if thev lid autonomy. at the end of 30 years they would not then wantI independence. Mr. PARDEE. Yes. The CHAIR.MAN. If there are no fullther questions. we thank you ver v much, Mr. Pardee. The CHAIRMaAN. Mr. McDaniel. STATEMENT OF J. S. McDANIEL, CHAIRMAN CORDAGE INSTITUTE, NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. Give your name, address, and business, please. Mr. McDANIEL. My name is J. S. McDaniel. Mv address is 350 Madison Avenue. I am chairman of the Cordage Institute. In this particular matter I represent the entire domestic hard fiber cordage industry. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 293 Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I have not been in the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. That will save you many embarrassing questions. Mr. McDANIEL. To save another one, I am here representing the industry because of selfish interests. The CHAIRMAN. That is a very frank statement, and quite refreshing. Mr. MCDANIEL. We are customers as well as competitors of the Philippine Islands. In that connection, I have not heard, except in one or two minor ways, manila fiber or cordage mentioned. I want to ask at this time, in order to save the time of the committee, to have permission to file a brief, with an appendix of some statistical tables, and some exhibits, to be inserted in the record. The CHAIRMAN. That will be done. Mr. MCDANIEL. I have prepared for the benefit of the committee an exhibit showing what fiber is and what cordage is. The purpose of that is to illustrate one thing, particularly. I have heard in Washington a number of times reference to hemp. and because of the misuse of that term " hemp " I thought it was worth while to illustrate the difference between what is really hemp and what is manila fiber. This is hemp [exhibiting sample] which is grown in the United States, formerly in Kentucky, but now largely in Wisconsin, with the world supply largely in Russia and Italy. This [indicating] is manila fiber, from which cordage is made. Hemp is used only for taut hemp fittings, in the cordage industry, where the cordage must absorb a lot of tar. It must not be confused at all with manila fiber. There is only one manila fiber. It comes -practically exclusively from the Philippine Islands. That is all covered in the brief. This merely designates the manufacture of cordage. because there has been a great deal of discussion as to what is cordage and what is twine. Senator JOHNSON. Is manila fiber raised in no other locality? Mr. MCDANIEL. Practically not, Senator. It is raised to some extent in Sumatra, but the percentage of production there is so small that it is negligible. It has been introduced into Panama, but it is not produced there commercially at all at this time. Senator JOHNSON. Is our trade very substantial with it? Mr. MCDANIEL. Formerly the exports of manila fiber from the Philippines were first, I believe, in exports of the Philippine Islands. I believe to-day they are third. Senator JOHNSON. What two commodities precede it? Mr. MCDANIEL. Sugar and copra, and coconut oil. The CHAIRMAN. Coconut products, in other words. Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Will you explain each one of those, briefly? Mr. MCDANIEL. In the manufacture of cordage we take these fibers overlapping in a parallel sliver. This sliver would be as long as the cordage would be. We twist the sliver into a yarn, and from the yarn we twist two or more of those into the strand, and we take three or more strands and make a rope. We take three ropes and make a cable. Really, "cordage" is a term which is more or less of a generic term, also used wrongly. We, in the trade, refer to rope as 294 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS cordage. The smallest cordage made commercially is three-sixteenths of an inch in diameter. You will notice that that cordage, then, or rope, is made of three strands, each strand containing two or more yarns. Twine like this [indicating] is merely a single yarn, or two or more yarns twisted together. For instance, very often we hear a discussion regarding binder twine as being cordage. Binder twine is not cordage. Binder twine is similar to a single yarn, but is never called cordage in the trade commercially. It is treated separately in the tariff, and in all ways. Even our distribution of twine is different from the distribution of cordage. Senator JOHNSON. Is the article manufactured over there, or do you get merely the original fiberMr. MCDANIEL. We buy the fiber over there and the article is manufactured there. Senator JOHNSON. In the Philippine Islands? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. As I stated, we are both customers and competitors of the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. Just what do you mean when you say you are customers as well as competitors? Mr. MCDANIEL. I mean that we buy our raw material; we bluy the principal fiber used in the manufacture of cordage practically exclusively from the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAANX. Then you manufacture it there. or in tlhis country? Mr. MCDANIEL. N. W. e manufacture here. and compete with cordage produced in the Philippine Islands, which comes here to compete with the product of the United States. The CHAIRAAN. Do they make cables of this kind [indicating] in the Philippines, as well as in this country? iMr. MCDANIEL. Yes. They mrake a full line of corldecre in the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. Mr. McDaniel, with respect to that brief of yours. could you tell us what its object is, briefly? Do you want protection? Mr. M DANxIEL. 'We are not asking for protection, (f course. at this time. Senator. The object of the brief was to place before this committee all the facts concerning the cordage industry in the United States and the Philippine Islands, and the relationship. The CHAIRMAN. W1hat (onclusions (10 you dcraw from those facts that you present? Mr. MCDANIEL. I was going to say. Senator, that with regard to the particular subject matter of your inquiry, we are not here urging Philippine independence, nor do we urge that the opposite course be pursued. We believe that there are other interests which far transcend the interest of merely the corldage industrv. There -re other matters other than 'ndu:;irial miatters which ha,-e to be taken into consideration in determining whether the Philippine Islandls ought to have their independence. We do believe, however, that it is our duty, as well as our privilege, to place before this co1mmittee all the facts concerning this relationship, because it is a very direct and intimate relationship. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 295 Senator JOHNSON. What are the matters that far transcend in importance the economic considerations to which you have referred? Mr. McDANIEL. Well, they would be matters of government, involving naval bases and such things as that, which we know nothing of, Senator, and could not be expected to know anything about. They would have an influence on whether the islands should have their independence or not, it would seem to us, and we are not, therefore, prepared to take any position on independence, because we feel that ours is only a small part of the whole subject. The CHAIRMAN. You said you were appearing here from selfish motives; but with what particular object besides giving us the facts-to give arguments in favor of independence or against it? Mr. MCDANIEL. Neither, Senator; merely to place before you the facts concerning the cordage industry and the fiber industry in the Philippine Islands, so that those facts may be considered by the committee in determining what the status should be. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand, then, that the members of the Cordage Institute take no stand one way or the other in regard to, independence Mr. MCDANIEL. On independence, they take no stand one way or the other. Senator JOHNSON. What would be the effect on your industry if independence were granted? I assume it would have no effect, or you would take a stand. Mr. MCDANIEL. If they were granted their independence, and there was tariff autonomy, we would unquestionably obtain some protection against the competition in the finished article, cordage, assuming that Congress places a tariff of some kind on the products of the Philippine Islands. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it would benefit your industry if they had tariff autonomy, because you would be able to manufacture cordage here without having to compete with the manufacture of cordage in the Philippines. Mr. McDANIEL. That is true, yes. Senator JOHNSON. Do you compete successfully now? Mr. MCDANIEL. The Philippine Islands' imports of cordage have increased 526 per cent in 10 years; and 1900 per cent in 19 years. Senator JOHNSON. And what percentage of increase has your business experienced? Mr. McDANIEL. Our business has declined. Senator JOHNSON. So that you have difficulty competing with them? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. We have difficulty competing with them. Senator HAWES. That is because of the difference in thi wage scale in the Philippines and the United States? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. The wages in the Philippine Islands are approximately 9 cents an hour, compared to 45 cents an hour in this country. They have other advantages, such as an advantage in the purchasing of the fiber. We have to carry approximately sixmonths' supply of fiber in his country for our needs. We are far removed from the market. They can buy loose fiber in the manila market: They do not even have to bale it. We have to have it baled, and it has to be unbaled, all of which takes labor. 1296 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator JOHNSON. I take it, then, that when you preface your remarks with the statement that you have a selfish interest in this matter, your urge is toward independence, in order that a tariff wall might be erected so that you might the better compete. Mr. MCDANIEL. I would not say that, Senator. We certainly need protection against this cordage. There is no doubt about that. We feel that it is our privilege to come here and place these facts before vou with regard to this compeittion, because that is something which has to do with the business relationships, or the relationship between the Philippines and the United States. However, at the same time we do recognize that there are a lot of other interests involved in Philippine independence, and we do not believe the issue of Philippine independence should be decided wholly on the basis of cordage. Senator JOHNssoN. I rather think I agree with you in that particular, but I an trying to ascertain the position of your industry. If it has no position, as you state, I will not pursue the;lbject further. The CHAIRMAN. Is it fair to state the question this way, that the cordage industry at the present time is suffereing? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. The CHAIRIMAN-. And you come before the Conllress and ask the Congress to do something to help your incdstry? Mr. _MCDANIEL. That is true. The CHAIRxMAN. What it shall do, you put up to Congress? Mr. MCDANIEL. That is absolutely true, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. You do not particularly care whether an arrangement is made limiting the importation of cordage froni the Philippines to a certain amount, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Timberlake resolution with regard to sugar, which would enable you the better to compete with the low price of labor in the Philippines, or whether independence is granted sooner or later, which would automatically erect a tariff barrier against the ord a (e manufactured in the Philippines. Mr. MCDA NIEL. That is absolutely the case. It makes no difference to, the cordage industry how that is accomplished. We do need some protection against this competition. The CHAIRMA-N. But if independence were grantedl tlhe Philippines, as suggested by Senator Hawes, of Missouri,. and at the same time a reciprocal free trade arrangelnent were madle, so ( that they would not suffer at all, thell our industry would not (:ain:tt all by the proceeding. Mr. McDANIEL. We would lose if any free-tradle arralngement were entered into. There are two factors here that have to be considered, the fiber and the competition. We are suffering from this comnpetition right now, to-day, and we need some adjustmlentt inliediately. Senator A\ANDENsBE1%G. What do you think would happlen to t6he cordage industry in the Philippine Islands if they lost our free 11market Mr. IMCDANIEL. If they lost our free market. they wouldl o back, Senator. to their Oriental market, which they had formerly. Senator \A-NDENBERG. Do you think they could do that successfully? Mir. MCDANIEL. I think so; yes, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think they could compete INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 297 Mr. MCDANIEL. The Philippine cordage industry is small to-day. They have built it up gradually. It is only in the last 10 years that they have become a real factor in this country, and they are not so large to-day but what they could go into the Oriental market and supply that Oriental market. Senator VANDENBERG. And still maintain their existing wage scales, and so forth? Mr. MCDANIEL. And maintain their existing wage scales. Senator JOHNSON. Do Filipinos own the industrial aspect of the cordage industry? Mr. IMDANIEL. No. The largest company is owned by Ynchausti & Co., a Spanish family, which, I understand, are not naturalized Filipinos, but it is only fair to say that they have lived there for generations. They are a very wealthy family. They own railroads and other industries. Their largest interest is in sugar. They own several sugar centrales, or control several sugar centrales. I have been given to understand that their cordage industries are secondary. The only reason why they can sell in this country at as low a price as they do is because they do not have a cost system covering their cost of manufacturing cordage, and their overhead is lost in the overhead of these cordage and ship companies, distilleries, and so forth. I believethey own two distilleries. Senator HAWES. Where? Mr. MCDANIEL. In the Philippines. Senator HAWES. I am beginning to understand why these Americans do not want independence. Senator VANDENBERG. From your point of view, then, the Philippine Islands could face independence, so far as the cordage industry is concerned, with ultimate success, regardless of the tariffs they might confront in the United States. Mr. MCDANIEL. That is absolutely true in my opinion. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the opinion of the people interested in cordage manufacture in the Philippines? Mr. MCDANIEL. If they were honest, Senator, I believe it would be. They would not, naturally, have the advantage of free trade in building up a big business in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Is their business still growing rapidly? Mr. MCDANIEL. Their business is growing. They are expanding now. I believe there is some machinery on its way to the Philippine Islands for further expansion now. The CHAIRMAN. So, the cordage industry is not only suffering from what is actually happening, but is suffering from a threat of more serious competition. Mr. MCDANIEL. The threat of expansion from the Philippine Islands. The Philippine competition is really a serious threat to the industry in this country. It is only a matter of time before we will either have to get out of business, or move to the Philippine Islands. or do something, because you can not compete against them under present conditions. The CHAIRMAN. If you were assured that the Philippines would remain under the American flag for a period of 30 years, would you then be inclined to move your plants to the Philippine Islands? Mr. McDANIEL. I would doubt it, Senator, because, from studies that we have made, we do not believe that we could move the total 298 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS production that we require at the present time to the Philippine Islands, all at one time, and manufacture over there any cheaper, or not enough cheaper to warrant moving over there. I mean by that, that these plants which are there have been built up from local labor. If we moved over there we would have to move our skilled Jabor over there with us. We would have to take our overhead over there. Besides that, it means throwing overboard millions of dol lars worth of real property in this country, which I will illustrate with one plant in a very small city, a plant with probably two or three million dollars involved in buildings and property. We could not dispose of that property. It could not be sold for $250,000. That plant has been there for 120 years. It is worth a lot of money to the company. but it would not be worth anything to anybody else. You can not move that to the Philippine Islands, so you can see that we would resist moving to the Philippines to the nth degree. Senator 1HAwES. How many men do you employ in the United States? Mr. McI)-\AIEL. The United States census for 1927, I think. showed 15.000 men. Senator HAWES. How does the wage scale of those 15,000 men compare, just in a general way, with the wage scale in the Philippines? Mr. MCDANIEL. The wage scale in the Philippines would be 22 per cent, or less. as compared with the wage scale here. Senator Htw-Es. The wage scale here, then, is over four times as much. Mr. McDA.-NEL. Yes. The wage scale here is about five times what it is in the Philippine Islands. This relationship which I mentioned, that we wanted to speak of, is, of course. fiber. We buv this fiber from the Philippine Islands. It is the principal fiber used in cordage manufacture, and comes excluiv-ely from the Philippine Islands, with a very small amount coming from Sumatra, but the amount is negligible. The fiber has been introduced into Panama, but is not grown commercially. and probably will not be grown commercially there unless that were the only means cordage manufacturers had of protecting themselves against Philippine cordate. I mean, if they could produce that fiber cheaper, or cheap enough in Panama, it might be able to compete with the Philippine Islands. That, naturally, would have a tremendous economic effect on the Philippine Islands. I am not making this statement from actual knowledge, but merely from the thought in my mind that there are probably more Filipino farmers growing fiber and depending on it for their living than on any other comnmodit. There are a number of little farms over there 1which produce only one or two bales of that fiber in a year. Senator BRoUssARI). Is that lrade from a palm? Mr. McDANIEL. That is made from a tree, similar to the banana tree, the same species. The fiber is part of the leaf stalk. It involves a stripping process, stripping the stalk between a knife and a block of wood, and scraping the pulp off. Our brief has gone into all the questions, such as the domestic industry, the capital invested, the people affected, the question of what is cordage, the relation of the Philippine-made cordage, and so forth, and gives facts regarding the Philippine-made cordage, what it costs to produce cordage, how INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 299 much they are producing, and it goes into the manila fiber very extensively, and shows the importance of that. Senator VANDENBERG. Does your brief show how many people, all-told, in the Philippine Islands are involved in the fiber and -cordage operation? Mr. MCDANIEL. No Senator, it does not. I do not know that that;figure could even be gotten. Senator VANDENBERG. In your judgment, it is a very substantial proportion of the economic operation in the Philippine Islands. Mr. MCDANIEL. It is. I think some of the delegation who are here, and who are familiar with the conditions, could give you a better picture of it. Senator VANDENBERG. In your judgment, that very substantial 'economic element in the Philippine Islands would not be seriously affected if free trade were withdrawn in the American market. Mr. MCDANIEL. No. If free trade were withdrawn in the Ameri-,can market. we would continue to buy manila fiber from the Philippines. As an American industry, we would not have to go down to Panama and try to create a supply of fiber down there. In other words, if we can not get some adjustment through Congress here,:before we move to the Philippine Islands, unquestionably we would try to grow fiber in Panama, and see how cheaply we could produce it, producing it on a large scale, with large scale plantation methods, with machine stripping, and so forth. That would be our next step,:to try to protect ourselves. That fiber is there to-day. We know that we can produce a satisfactory fiber. It is a question of the cost of production. Senator VANDENBERG. But you would not undertake that venture so long as you had a satisfactory flow of fiber from the Philippine 'Islands. Mr. MCDANIEL. No; we would not. In fact, we would resist that venture. I think if we could obtain the necessary adjustment here we would want to see the Philippines retain a monopoly on abaca,;because it is a natural monopoly with them. Senator VANDENBERG. Then, to sum up your position, so far as the -economic exposure is concerned, you do not feel that the Philippines have anything to fear in so far as cordage and fiber are concerned, from indepedence and tariff autonomy? Mr. MCDANIEL. I do not. I would like to supplerentThe CHAIRMAN. I am interested in that. If they do not suffer, how do you benefit? If you are going to benefit, and get other busi-:ness, they are going to lose that business. I can not quite follow you. Mr. MCDANIEL. It all depends, Senator, on whether you are con-:sidering the future or whether you are considering the present. If,they benefit by free trade, and no independence, speaking only of %cordage, we suffer. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MCDANIEL. If they had independence, with tariff autonomy, we would not benefit particularly. We would merely maintain oir present status, and they would maintain their present status. That would seem to me to be a benefit to both sides. The CHAIRMAN. Did you not appear before the Finance Committee and ask for an increased duty on cordage? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. 300 INDEPEN)DENCE FORI THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMAN. Did you get it. Mr. MCDANIEL. So far. The CHAIRMAN. Has it been voted on on the floor yet? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Has it been granted? Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. Senator BROUSSARD. But it does not apply to the Philippines, does it? Mr. MCDANIEL. No; it does not. The CHAIRMAN. If independence comes, then it would apply to the Philippines. Mr. MCDANIEL. If they made it apply to them. The CHAIRMAN. If they did not specifically state that it should not apply to them, of course, it would automatically apply to them. Senator VANDENBERG. I think not. Mr. MCDANIEL. That was a question in my mind. Senator VANDENBERG. I submitted that question specifically to Senator Smoot the other day, because I know we have had some misunderstandings about it, and in his judgment an additional act of Congress would be necessary, supplementing the independence act, in order to apply our tariffs to the Philippine Islands. That is the judgment of Senator Smoot, for whatever it is worth. Senator BROUSSARD. You would have to repeal section 301. Senator VANDENBERG. Precisely. Senator JOHNSON. I may have misunderstood you, but I thought vou said vou came in conflict with the Filipinos in Ayour cordatge business. Mr. MCDANIEL. We (1o. Senator JOHNsON. And with them alone' Mr. MCDANIEL. No. I d(id not mean to say that. Senator. if I did. Senator JOHNSON. With whom else are vou in conflict Mr. MCDANIEL. England and Holland. Senator JOHNSON. In the matter ofMr. MCDANIEL. Manila rope. Senator JOHNSON. Manila rope manufactured into cordage. Mr. MCDANIEL. Yes. They buy fiber from the Philippine Islands the same as we do. and thev manufacture it into rope in England and in Holland. with their cheap labor, and send it into the United. States to compete with us. Senator JOHNSON. Is that a serious competition? Mr. MCDANIEL. That is a serious competition. Senator JOHNsoN. As serious as the Philippine competition Mr. MCDANIEL. Not as likely to increase. I mean. they would not be as likely to expand their mills, and seek business. They have the world market. The Philippines ha-e looked to the United States for their market. I would like to sum up, Senator, by simply reading the three paragraphs which conclude our brief. We have attempted to portray to you the difficulties which the present condition brings to us as cordage manufacturers in that the continuation of the present relationship, probably desirable from some points of view. throws upon the cordage industry a dispropor INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 301 tionate share of the cost consequent to such a course. We do not suggest that to grant independence, also probably desirable from some points of view, is justified in order to lighten our burden only. We point out to you the uncertainty of the present situation which can not be regarded as sufficiently settled to allow even the intelligent planning of one's course. We hope that there will result from your deliberations some relief from our burdens, at least the removal of some of the uncertainty attending the status of the Islands. Senator JOHNSON. Upon the question of Philippine independence, then, you express a pious hope that we will act one way or the other. Mr. McDANIEL. A hope that you will do something; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn at this time until 2.30, when we will hear Mr. Mabilangan. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.30 o'clock p. m.) (Mr. McDaniel submitted the following brief:) RELATION OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO THE UNITED STATES CORDAGE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, United States Senate. GENTLEMEN: With a deep appreciation of the international importance, the vast extent, and the perplexing problems of the subject matter of your present inquiry, as well as the varying views in relation to it, the cordage industry of the United States respectfully submits to your committee this statement. By it we shall endeavor to showFirst. That as a result of the purchase of large quantities of raw materials in the Philippine Islands to be used in the domestic manufacture of cordage and as a result also of competition in the United States from Philippinemade cordage, we have a direct interest in the relationship, economic and otherwise, between the Philippine Islands and the United States; we are customers as well as competitors. Second. That with regard to the particular subject of your inquiryPhilippine independence-we do not appear for the purpose of urging either that the islands be granted their independence or that the opposite course be pursued; we recognize that such a question must be settled on grounds other than those solely economic. Third. That we desire to make clear our position in the light of the preceding interests. Fourth. That it is our sincere effort to furnish your committee with all the facts in our possession which have a bearing upon the relationship to which we have referred. As citizens we consider it a privilege, but as cordage manufacturers we look upon \t as our duty, to cooperate with you in the obtaining of all facts necessary to be considered by you in a proper, fair, and just determination of the future status of the Philippines. The problem which confronts both the United States and the Philippines may be looked at from a wholly selfish standpoint, but it may also be approached from the point of view which has in mind all the responsibilities which this country has assumed toward the Philippine Islands. The domestic cordage industry means to be alert to the broader as well as to the narrower point of view. We believe that such relations should maintain between this country and the Philippines as will bring to both an increasing confidence, economic welfare, and a national cordiality proceeding from such relations. The cordage manufacturers of the United States do not desire to imperil the future of these relations merely to offset a trade disadvantage; similarly we e-ltertain the hope that the ultimate disposition of the Philippine question will reciprocally take into consideration the facts which constitute our material interest and our sincerity in the presentation of them. 302 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS To understand properly the economic relationship letween the domesticcordage industry and the Philippine Islands it will be necessary to know(a) Something of the history, character, development, extent, and importa;nce of the domestic cordage industry itself. ({b) A knowledge of the product it manufactures and the methods by vwhich this commodity is produced. (c) Similar facts as to the same industry or correlated industries in the: Philippine Islands. We will approach these matters in that order. DOMESTIC CORDAGE INDUSTRY Th2lv domestic cordage industry is as old as the country itself. It is a significant fact that many of the operating companies of to-day were founded more than a century ago. The development of the nation has brought about many changes in the character of the industry and we have passed from the manufacture of cordage by hand methods in small factories located throughout the country. With the introduction of machinery and the growth of communication and transportation the domestic manufacture of cordage has become centralized. for economic reasons, in larger units. The cordage plants of the United States are now located in 11 States, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The industry has a capital investment of $48,000,000, and employing more than 15,000 people it has a direct effect upon the lives and incomes of an estimated 75,000 persons. (U. S. Biennial Census, 1927.) The few strands of cordage made in a primitive way in the earliest days have grown to a total annual output in the United States to-day in excess of 150,000,000 pounds (exclusive of binder twine which is not cordage, as explained later). The industry, it is manifest, has become an important, necessary, and vital factor in practically every phase of our industrial life. The cordage industry is an essential domestic industry in peace as well as in war times. It is essential to American shipping, railroads, and other transportation systems, to the transmission of power (as in the mining of coal), to the production of oil, and construction and engineering projects, to the fishing' industry, to lumbering, farming, and practically every line of activity. It is particularly an essential industry to the United States Government, to the conduct of operations of the Army, Navy, Engineering Corps (including flood-control work), Coast Guard, Lighthouse Service, and, in fact, every department of governmental activity. But while the Government and other domestic industries require cordage for peace-time uses, an adequate supply of cordage and twines in war times is indispensable. During the World War the domestic cordage industry was classified as "essential " and was called upon to supply the Allies as well as the United States with cordage. It is estimated that between 75,000,000 and 85,000,000 pounds of cordage were furnished by the United States cordage industry for direct war purposes and millions of pounds were sold to industries operating on war materials, etc. Many of the present employees have been engaged in the industry for upwardl of 50 years, some of them representing the third or fourth generations engaged in the production of cordage. Trained exclusively in this particular trade they would have no profitable avocation to which to turn in the event of unemployment resulting from a depression in the domestic cordage industry. In some instances the industrial life of a whole community depends mainly upon corldage manufacture. We attach hereto as a part of the appendix portions of a recent study made by the Harvard Business School which will more effectually evidence thi importance of this industry as well as impress your committee with the extent of distribution and other phases of cordage manufacture. (See Appendix A.) WIHAT IS CORDAGE? The termn "cordage' can not be easily defined. It has been used loosely to include anything and everything made of any tw sted fiber with length and' strength, such as threads, twines, ropes, cables, hawsers, etc. Some of thest are. properly speaking, "cordage" and others are not. In the development of the trade and the ordinary course of business, cordage has come to have a INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 303 rather definite significance. All of the products enumerated, whether properly described as cordage or not, are made from fibers. Abaca, commonly referred to as manila fiber, because it is grown exclusively in the Philippine Islands and exported principally from the port of Manila, is the best material for rope making, where strength and durability are the prime requisites. There are other fibers, some of which are produced in the Philippine Islands, which fibers have their particular use in the manufacture of particular articles, but these need not be considered here, because the relative production of these other fibers in the Philippines compared to the production of the same or similar fibers in the rest of the world is negligible. But the production of manila fiber (abacfl) in the Philippine Islands is essentially a Philippine monopoly. It will be unnecessary here to discuss soft fibers or other animal, plant, or fruit fibers, out of which certain threads, twines, and cords are made, as they have no bearing upon the Philippine problem. Among them, for instance, are cotton, silk, wool, jute, rayon, etc. Because of a popular confusion, attention should at once be called to the improper use of the term " hemp." Hemp (Cannabis s8ativas) is a soft fiber produced in Russia, Italy, and parts of the United States. Because this was one of the earliest known fibers used for cordage manufacture, it became the custom to apply the term "hemp" to many other fibers as they were from time to time introduced in the industry. Manila fiber (abacd), the technical name for which is Musa textilis, is a hard fiber and, for physical reasons, is the principal fiber used as a raw material in the manufacture of cordage to-day, except for tarred hemp fittings, where a soft, pliable fiber, capable of absorbing large quantities of tar, is necessary. The first manufacturing step in producing any thread, twine, or cordage is to lay the fibers parallel, the ends overlapping, in a long, untwisted ribbon of fibers called a " sliver." When the sliver is twisted a yarn is produced. This yarn is sometimes called a thread or twine, if it is used as a completed article in that form, but there are other steps in the manufacture of cordage. Two or more yarns are twisted together forming what is known as a strand, three or more strands are twisted together laying the rope, three or more ropes laid together produce a cable-laid rope, sometimes referred to colloquially as "hawser laid." It is manifest from the above that sizes thus produced will vary, and the smallest fiber ropes made commercially are about one-half inch in circumference or three-sixteenths in diameter. Rope is cordage of stranded construction. Two or more yarns twisted together and used as a completed article in that form is a twine. In the domestic hard fiber cordage industry, the term " cordage" is generally intended to imply cordage of stranded construction. For the purpose of this discussion, however, the term "cordage" will be used to include all yarns, twine, rope, etc., produced of hard fiber, unless particular exception is made for designated reasons. It should be remembered that binder twine, used on the farm, is not cordage. Binder twine is on the free list; no suggestion has been made that it be removed; it comes in free of any import duty from any country in the world. THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND THE DOMESTIC CORDAGE INDUSTRY The interest of cordage manufacturers of the United States arises out of two distinct relationships between the Philippines and the domestic cordage industry: First, a finished Philippine product made from a Philippine raw material (fiber) entering the United States to compete seriously with the products of domestic cordage manufacturers; and Second, a present Philippine monopoly in the most important raw material used in the manufacture of cordage in the United States. Cordage has been produced in practically every country of the world but particularly in those countries of the Tropics where fiber-bearing plants are found in the natural state. All such countries instinctively turn to the production of some form of cordage, however primitive, out of the readily available raw material found about them. This is true of the Philippine Islands. 304 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS When it was discovered that Manila fiber, as a raw material for certain kinds of cardage, was the best and most important fiber so far located, it was very natural that the Philippines should produce cordage for local consumption. At first this Philippine cordage production, made from fibers locally grown, was confined to Philippine and oriental markets. But as will be shown later, although the Philippine Islands had sold and exported to the United States millions of pounds of Manila fiber, dating back to the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the exports of Manila cordage to the United States, which were negligible prior to the World War, have steadily increased in extent and importance. Obviously, the serious competition in the United States arising out of the implrtltation of the finished product, cordage, from the Philippines constitutes the primary interest of the domestic cordage manufacturers in this instance. The normal interest,f the domestic manufacturer in the matter of fiber (because of the importance of the fiber in cordage manufacture) is naturally secondary to competition in the finished product in that the destruction of the domestic cordage industry would annihilate domestic interest in the fiber. PHILIPPINE-MADE CORDAGE Imports of cordage from the Philippine Islands, negligible prior to the World War, have steadily increased in importance." (Summary of Tariff Information, 1929, on tariff act of 1922, Schedule 10, U. S. Tariff Commission.) "The growing consumption of Manila hemp in the local manufacture of cordage may, however, account for some of the differences between the volume of abaca produced and the volume exported in 1925-26. According to the statics prepared for Col. Carmi A. Thompson by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, the volume of cordage produced in the Philippine Islands, expressed in kilos (2.204 lbs.), slhows the following very substantial growth of the industry. Kilos 1910___ --— __________ —______ —___ 156,075 1915__-_ _ _ --- —-----— _ —_ ---- ----— _____ 454,621 1920- ----— ________________ --- ----- 2,003, 444 1925 --- —--------------------------- 5, 498, 219 " These values appear to be determined from the table of exports, since the quantity reported for 1925 is identically the same as the quantity reported by the insular collector of customs as having been exported in that year. The volume of exports receded to 4,565,420 kilos in 1926, but this fact does not detract from the picture of the growth of the industry in the last 15 years. Moreover, with the large amount of slipping here in the Philippines and the somewhat extensive requirements of the United States Government for supplies, the amount of cordage actually produced should, I think, materially exceed the amount exported; that is, there must be a large local market for that commodity." (The above is from "A survey of economic conditions in the Philippine Islands, with particular reference to present and future developments," submitted to the Governor General by Lyman P. Hammond, vice president Electric Bond & Share Co., of New York, June 30, 1928, in accordance with arrangement made between Hon. Henry L. Stimson, Governor General of Philippine Islands, and Electric Bond & Share Co.. of New York.) IMPORTS OF PHILIPPINE-MADE CORDAGE Imports of Philipline-mlde cordage in the Ullited States hlave increased fronm 1,119,861 pounds in 1919 to more than 7,0,i0.000 pounds in 1929 (based on actual imports for the first 10 months of 1929. United States customs statistics). This represents anl in.rese in the cordage imports from the Philippines in 10 years of 526 per cent. Imports of Philippilne-made cordage to the United States for 1929 will exceed the imports for 1928 by approximately 1,200,000 pounds, representing an increase of 20 per cent in one year. In the appendix will be found import statistics bearing upon this subject. (See B.) It should be remembered in calculating these increases in imports that the 1919 importations of 1,119,861 pounds of Philippine-made cordage represented an increase of 775.779 pounds over the total exports of Philippine-made cordage INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 305 for 1910, in which year (according to the report of Lyman P. Hammond of June 30, 1928) the total exports were 344,082 pounds. In other words, the imports of 1919 of Philippine-made cordage were 225 per cent greater thahl the imports for 1910. Imports in 1929 represent an increase of over 1,900 per cent over imports for 1910. In the manufacture of cordage the heaviest portion of the investment is confined to the preparation and spinning machinery or that part of the operation which produces a completed yarn from which strands and cordage are made, and in this connection it should be stated that the domestic industry is capable of heavy overproduction. This fact has worked against small domestic mills growing up, as the heavy investment required in the preparation and spinning machinery for the early steps of cordage manufacture would be prohibitive to a small plant. The Philippine cordage manufacturers have, as a result, found a ready market in this country for yarns which certain small concerns merely twist into cordage. In fairness it should be stated that the total poundage of such yarn so imported is included in the import statistics, but the fact of the competition of such yarns, manufactured into cordage in this country with small investment, is material. PHILIPPINE MANUFACTUTRERS We submit herewith a list of these cordage manufacturers of the Philippines, the names of whom have come to our attention: Juan Feliciano & Sisters; General Manufacturing Co. (Inc.); Johnson-Pickett Rope Co.; Manila Cordage Co.; Ynchausti & Co. Of this list of manufacturers the cordage industry has had contact largely with only three, and the statements made concerning those three plants are taken from information given to domestic manufacturers or from advertising on the part of the Philippine manufacturers. The three manufacturers with whom such direct or indirect contact has been had are: The Ynchausti & Co., the Johnson-Pickett Rope Co. and the Manila Cordage Co. Ynchausti & Co. is generally recognized as controlled by an old Spanish family, members of which have resided in the Philippine Islands for many generations. The fact is, however, that the family is reputed to be one of the wealthiest in the Philippine Islands. They are shipowners, steamship agents, own the largest sugar central (with a production in 1924-25 of 890,000 bags), they own seven sugar plantations and own or control certain cement plants and two distilleries. They are importers of ship chandlery, engineering supplies, construction material, hardware, machine, iron and steel; they advertise they are manufacturers of high grade manila cordage, with the best equipped factory in the Orient, which was established in 1860. In addition they own hemp plantations and buying agencies throughout the islands. At least one advertisement of their activities contains the interesting notice that they are contractors to the United States Navy, United States Quartermasters' Corps, and insular government. The Johnson-Pickett Rope Co. is presumably controlled by Mr. John T. Pickett, an American who has resided in the Philippine Islands since prior to the Spanish-American War, and who is the operating head of the company. The present cordage plant of this company is the result of slow and gradual development. A fire in this plant in 1926 will explain the lower Philippine made cordage exports to the United States as shown in the 1927 figures. The two mentioned companies are the only two Philippine cordage manufacturers who export cordage to the United States, for sale, to our knowledge. The Manila Cordage Co. owns a small cordage plant in Manila. The company itself and the plant are a subsidiary of the Tubbs Cordage Co. of San Francisco, Calif. The plant was purchased by the Tubbs Co. in the year 1923 for experimental purposes. It should be stated also that this company has never exported cordage for resale to the United States from the Philippines. 92109-30-PT 3-5 306 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MANUFACTURING CONDITIONS IN THE PHIIHPPINES AND IN THE UNITED STATES Manufacturers in the Philippine Islands, just as manufacturers in tht United States, must purchase manila fiber and must use labor in the produc tion of cordage. But the Philippine cordage manufacturers have their plants at the sour't of production of the principal raw material used in the manufacture of cord age-manila fiber (abaca). Manufacturers in the United States, because of their distance from the source of production and supply of this important raw material, are required to keel an average of over six months' supply of the raw material on hand at all times. This is verified by figures of domestic manufacturers for the past twc years. The Philippine manufacturer need not carry more than a few days' to a few weeks' supply of this raw material. Furthermore, the government of the Philippine Islands in 1915 passed an act providing for the grading of fiber, under which standard grades were established. This act provides for the classification, baling, and inspection of all Philippine fibers, and provides that all fibers exported from the Philippine Islands shall be so classified, graded, and baled under Government supervision. This work is now under control of a government board, known as the fiber standardization board, and the expenses of this board are met through fees which are held to between 10 and 30 centavos per bale (275 pounds), at the discretion of the board. The present fee is 10 centavos per bale. The inspection fee upon fibers used by Philippine manufacturers is refunded, but all fibers exported pay this fee. There is no fee on fiber exported from the Philippine Islands in the form of rope, nor is there any kind of a fee charged against rope exported from the islands except the usual manifest charges The important factor and condition of production, however, involved in the manufacture of cordage, both in the Philippines and in the United States, is that of labor. Labor rates in the domestic cordage industry will average approximately 45 cents per hour. Labor rates in the Philippine cordage mills are approximately 10 cents per hour,; labor rates for common labor in the Philippine Islands are approximately 9 cents per hour. The American cordage worker, therefore, receives an average of five times what the Philippine worker receives. Distribution costs of Philippine manufacturers and domestic manufacturers are probably closer together, relatively, than any of the other costs. So long as Philippine manufacturers are able to undersell domestic manufacturers. because of lesser fiber and production costs, distribution costs of Philippine manufacturers will be less than domestic distribution costs, for the fundamental reason that it is easier to sell with a lower price, and where it is easier to sell the costs of selling will be lower. Philippine manufacturers are at no disadvantage through distribution, for they sell to jobbers, distributors, or agents, who carry stocks in their respective localities, the same as domestic manufacturers must do. The freight rates on rope from Manila to United States are as follows: Manila to Atlantic coast, $35 per ton of 2,240 pounds. Manila to Pacific coast, for local consumption, $23.65 per ton of 2,240 pounds. The freight rates on fiber from the Philippines to United States are as follows: Manila to Atlantic coast ports, $2.25 per bale of 274 pounds. Manila to Pacific coast ports, $1.50 per bale of 274 pounds. NOTE. —The rates from such ports as Davao and several other out ports are 35 cents per bale above the rates given above on fiber. Abacd.-Of all hard fibers, imported into the United States for cordage and twine purposes. 25 per ce!t is imported fromI tile Philippine Islands. or 116,410.560 pounds (1927). (Fonrign Commelce land N;viration of the Unitedl States, calendar year. 1927.) Of hard fibers, imported from the Pllilippines for cordage purposes, 98 per cent is manila fiber (abacI), the others being lmaguey and other miscellaneous Philippine-produced hard fibers. Until within the past few years the Philippine Islands have enjoyed an ahsolute mlonopoly of the production of this important manila fiber, abacfi. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 307 Climate, soil, and other natural conditions operate to produce, in the Philippine Islands, manila fiber of great strength and durability, but recently it has been discovered that satisfactory abaca can be produced in the Western Hemisphere and in parts of the Orient other than the Philippines. Therefore, it is probable that the monopoly, which has existed and which has been enjoyed by the Philippines, probably resulted from the fact that abaca of suitable characteristics was found growing in a wild and natural state in the Philippine Islands in sufficient quantities and because there was readily available, for the harvesting and stripping of this natural growth, an inexpensive supply of labor. Other parts of the world would naturally hesitate to enter the cultivation and production of abaca in the face of natural advantages existing in the Philippines. Sumatra has produced small quantities of abaca in recent years, but it is only fair to state that the total production in Sumatra and elsewhere, while not of serious competitive importance to-day, constitutes a serious threat to the natural Philippine monopoly. It has been demonstrated also that abaca of a satisfactory quality can be grown and cultivated in the Western Hemisphere, but this is still in an experimental stage, and it remains to be seen whether production costs can be sufficiently lowered, through large scale operations and machine decortication, to offset the lower labor costs, native or foreign, in the Philippine Islands. I)omestic cordage manufacturers have cooperated with the Philippine Islands in an effort to improve abaca. Cordage Institute has supported, at its expense, a fellowship in the Islands for pathological and chemical research in connection with that fiber. In the appendix will be found a complete statement of the cultivation, marketing, and use of abaca. (C to 3 C.) SUMMARY We have shown that serious competition exists in the United States between cordage of Philippine manufacture and cordage manufactured in the United States. We have shown that imports of Philippine-made cordage have increased 526 per cent in 10 years, and in connection with which showing it is only fair to state that the domestic production of Manila cordage during the same period has declined. (See Appendix D.) We have shown that for the year 1929 importations of Philippine cordage to the United States increased 20 per cent over importations for 1928, all of which increases indicate that importations of Philippine cordage will continue to grow under existing conditions. We have shown that Philippine manufacturers have a lower fiber cost because of their proximity to the fiber market. We have shown that Philippine manufacturers are reimbursed for grading fees, which reimbursement domestic manufacturers do not enjoy. We have indicated the rapidity in which Philippine manufacturers nmay 3btain necessary grades of figer because of their proximity to the market. We have indicated the necessity of baling products for shipment to American manufacturers and of the ability of Philippine manufacturers to use loose, nnbaled fiber. We have shown that the wages of labor in the Philippine Islands is 22 )er cent of wages to similar employees in the cordage plants of the United States. We show by supplemental statement in the appendix the extent and character )f the fiber-growing industry in the Philippine Islands. The future of this rreat agricultural industry of the islands must be of grave concern to them. rhe Philippine people are to-day, and probably will continue to be for many,ears to come, largely an agricultural people. The 1918 Philippine Islands census figures of those engaged in the five groups,f gainful occupations in the islands show 40.4 per cent employed in agriculture nd only 13.4 per cent engaged in manufacturing or mechanical pursuits. The production of abaca (manila fiber) is a material factor of their existence. See Appendix E to G.) We have shown the possibility of cultivation of satisfactory abaca elsewhere, nd such growth constituting a threat to the Philippine monopoly in abaca, it 308 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS must stand as a compelling factor in the treatment of the abaca industry of the islands. We have referred to the matter of government grading. Prior to this government grading of the quality of abaca( filler had l)ecome unsatisfactory. There were other unsatisfactory features tand it was largely in the interest of stability of producing and marketing mialila filed( (abacIf) tlhat govertnment grading was inaugurated with United States manufacturers' support and encouragement. There are those among the manufacturers of the United States who see the possibility in the future of reversion to conditions preceding the passage of the government grading act. and in the Philippines there have been efforts to abolish present regulations. The fear of such a return, however, or the fear of a return to any conditions which would tend to lower the character of the Philippine product is diminished by the fact that any deterioration of the Philippine product would probably result in serious competitiol to the Philippines from other sections where experimentations in and some development of abac;L are already under way. Moreover, the competition that would follow any unstable marketing conditions, as to Philippine fiber, might ultimately prove most advantageous. For it is a known fact that the methods of producing abaca in the Philippine Islands have not changed materially for nearly a hundred years. No new methods have been introduced to any appreciable extent in the growing or stripping of the fiber. Competition would normally lead to changes. The records of the government and of individuals are replete with references to the necessity of improving growing and stripping methods in relation to abacd. Therefore, a return to former conditions which would at first lead to inferior fiber would in all probablility, through competition, ultimately result in better fiber and marketing conditions. In connection with fiber, it may also be stated that any future status of the Philippines probably would not be determined without treaties or international understandings which will preclude the possibility of discriminations as between the Philippines and the United States. Under the present or any future status, therefore, it is very unlikely that ther will be any legislation in the Philippine Islands in the nature of export tax on fiber of a discriminatory nature, so far as the American purchaser is concerned Even existing law provides the machinery for protective measures in the even of such discriminations, and the fear of any such development would seem t be unwarranted. There is little doubt, however, that under the present or any future status of the Philippines a continuation of cordial relations between th Filipinos and the American people will result in a Philippine expansion witt the aid of more experienced American genius. No such expansion can be con templated that does not include the opening of wider fields for the use of abaca which development could not but be beneficial to the islands as a whole. As to the Philippine finished product in its relation to the domestic finishe product-cordage-the cordage manufacturers of the United States can no but observe the ultimate necessity of equalizing the industrial economic dif ferences which exist. It is not for cordage manufacturers to say how the differences shall be adjusted, nor would it be proper for domestic cordag manufacturers to determine at this time which of the several suggeste remedies may ultimately be necessary. We have shown what conditions are as to the competition arising out o lower production costs and not the result of a superior quality of produc and we observe that where such conditions exist as between the United Stat and other countries, they have been and are, from time to time, adjusted. One solution of the problem presented by these differences which woul seem, however, to be wholly repugnant to the theory of our domestic industri development, would be the suggestion of moving American cordage industri to the Philippine Islands. No similar thought has ever been harbored in th United States. Entirely aside from the essential character of the industr the idea of moving a United States industry elsewhere in order to meet sue differences has never been officially proposed. But even if such a suggestion were to be made, the facts, as they have bee gathered so far by the industry, would militate against this as a solution the problem. To transplant the factories of the domestic industry to the Islands woul mean the sacrificing of millions of dollars in real property investments; r estate can not be moved to the Philippine Islands. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 309 But above this there would be the necessity of transplanting to the Philippines the skilled labor which forms a vital part of the industry. The cost of sending such employees to the islands and providing for their families or for their periodic return would be prohibitive. The industry of the islands has grown up over years and in the islands' industry skilled labor has been developed from local available labor. This would not be possible in the case of a vast industry suddenly transported to the islands. Moreover, climatic conditions probably would preclude the possibility of American workers remaining in the islands. Other factors in this connection are obvious. But even above all these considerations is the fact that the domestic industry, even if moved to the islands, could not count upon the future status of the islands, and the unstable condition and uncertainty of the future would make the move illogical as a remedy for present conditions. The further fact that in the-event of war the United States would be without a ready supply of cordage or manufacturers to produce additional supplies is almost a compelling argument against the thought of transplanting the industry. To propose a leveling of this unit cost to the level of the Philippine cost, in the face of the factors of cost which have been recited, would be futile. To raise internally the Philippine cost to the level of the American unit cost is a matter of slow development, a development that contemplates years and years in the changing wage scale and standard of living of the future Philippines. Many other possibilities may be proposed, including import duties, export taxes, bounties, and various other methods. These questions are not before your committee, nor may they properly be a part of this discussion. We have discussed briefly several suggested methods of adjustment of these economic differences, such as moving to the Philippines, only because they have come within the consideration of the United States manufacturers when confronted with the facts. CONCLJSION S We have attempted to portray to you the diTfficulties which the present condition brings to us as cordage manufacturers in that the continuation of the present relationship, probably desirable from some points of view, throws upon the cordage industry a disproportionate share of the cost consequent to such a course. We do not suggest that to grant independence, also probably desirable from some points of view, is justified in order to lighten our burden only. We point out to you the uncertainty of the present situation which can not be regarded as sufficiently settled as to allow even the intelligent planning of one's course. We hope that there will result from your deliberations some relief from our burdens, at least the removal of some of the uncertainty attending the status of the islands. Respectfully submitted. American Manufacturing Co., Brooklyn, N. Y.; California Thorn Cordage (Inc.), Los Angeles, Calif.; Columbian Rope Co., Auburn, N. Y.; Cupples Co., Manufacturers (Inc.), Brooklyn, N. Y.; Edwin H. Fitler Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Hooven & Allison Co., Xenia, Ohio; R. A. Kelly Co., Xenia, Ohio; New Bedford Cordage Co., New Bedford, Mass.; Peoria Cordage Co., Peoria, Ill.; Plymouth Cordage Co., North Plymouth, Mass.; Portland Cordage Co., Portland, Oreg.; Portland Cordage Co., Seattle, Wash.; John Rauschenberger Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; Rinek Cordage Co., Easton, Pa., E. T. Rugg Co., Newark, Ohio; St. Louis Cordage Mills, St. Louis, Mo.; Tubbs Cordage Co., San Francisco, Calif.; Wall Rope Works (Inc.), Beverly, N. J.; Waterbury Co., New York, N. Y.; Western Cordage Co., Orange, Calif.; Whitlock Cordage Co., Jersey City, N. J. By J. S. McDANIEL, Chairman Cordage Institute, New York, N. Y. 310 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS APPENDIX A [Abstract from preliminary report on 1927 figures from Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Soldiers Field, Boston, Mass. Study directed by Prof. H. T. Lewis] TABLE 1.-Distribution of cordage by type of customer Direct M Jobbe] M M S1 O T O1 0 Retail R R R R G D Others E F U t users: [anufacturing and mining- Pounds Bu lding materials, mining, quarry -____ --- —_____ 3, 900, 620 Paper and paper products_____________ --- —- --- 1, 015, 858 Petroleum and oil products___ _____ --- —---------- 4, 627,188 Leather and leather products ---— _______________ -- 739, 302 Grain, meat, and other food products --- —--------------- 1,154, 586 Cordage, net and twine, canvas products ---------------- 2,126, 828 Iron and steel, machinery. etc ____ _ ---------------- 12, 901. 084 Textiles -------— _- __ ---- ----------------- 792, 970 Miscellaneous manufacturers_ _______ --- —---— _ 2, 540, 235 ther direct usersFisheries _____________ —_________________ 1, 238, 739 Marine transportation ______ — -— _ --- _______ —_- 5, 203, 828 Land transportation, storage_ --- —-______ _ — 2, 918, 301 Public utilities other than railroads___-__ --- —__ _ 649, 371 Governmental]____________ — ___ --— _ 239, 493 Engineering heavy construction, building trades______ _ --- 1, 238,163 Miscellaneous direct users _________ —______ ---- 1, 670,104 rs: [anufacturers' agents, brokers_ —_ --- —----— __ 4, 989, 128 [anufacturing anti mining supplies________ —________ _ 10, 871, 007 hip chandlers ____ --- —-----— _____ --- —------— 11, 285, 245 ther supply firms --— ______________ — _____ -— _______ 307, 593 wine and cordage jobbers_ — _ --- -— _ _____ --- - 14, 503, 596 Wholesale hardware-________ --- —_____ ---- 21,121, 000 'holesale paper_________ ___________ — 3, 676, 377 'holesale lumber _________ ---- _____ --- — --------- 142, 093 Tholesale grocers___ ----________ -— _-___________ 522,159 ther wholes, lers -- _ __ --- —--— ________ ______ _ _ 907, 678 ers: etail hardware -- ______ --- ______- -------— _ 2, 032, 874 etail lumber_ ___________ --- —--- — _____ _ _ ----- 150, 163 etail implements, harness, feed ---- -----------— ___________ 185, 538 etail grocers______ _____ --- —— __________ _ 64, 445 eneral stores _________________ — -_____ ------- 195, 046 Department and chain stores, mail order___ ---_^ ---__ ___ 539, 305 s: xporters _______ --- —- — _____ --- —--— __ 1, 060. 075 oreign buyers___ _ --- —--— ___ -- ______ --— 1. 744, 488 nclassified _ ___ ---- _ --- —-— _ —___________ --— _ 491, 981 Total --. --- —— _ —_ — _ --- —-------- ---- 117, 747, 061 APPENDIX B Imports of cordage into the United States fromn the Philippine Isla)ds Pounds Pounds 1910-____ --- —------ 344,082 1924 —__________ --- — 25,216,755 1919-__.________________ 21, 119, 861 1925 —____________2 — 6, 901. 956 1920_____ --- —----- 899, 007 1926_ --- —--------— 2 6, 570, 846 1921_______________ 21,157, 609 1927 — ______ ---- - - 2 4, 849, 141 1922 --- —---------- 21,634, 688 19282 — 5, 882, 703 1923_____...............22,328,256 1929 ________ ----_ 7. 000, 000 1 Total exports of cordage from the Philippine Islands to all countries. Source: Report of insular collector of customs. 2 United States Customs Statistics. 3 Exports from Philippine Islands decreased in 1927, due to fire decreasing production of 1 mill, which mill has now been rebuilt. 4 United States Customs Statistics used for first 10 months; balance of year computed on basis of monthly average. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 311 APPENIX C CULTIVATION OF MANILA FIBER IN THE PHILIPPINES The fiber produced from the plant Musa textiU is known throughout the world as hemp, manila, manila hemp, or manila fiber. As has been stated, the use of the term "hemp" is misleading, as properly speaking, hemp is really a fiber produced from the plant Canabis satits. In the Philippine Archipelago, the term "abaca" is used to designate both the plant and the fiber produced from it. We have referred heretofore to the existing monopoly of the Philippines in abaca. However advantageous this has been to the Philippines, the lack of competition has resulted in the continuance of primitive methods of cultivation and fiber extraction. An authority describes this situation as resulting in cultivation and extraction "better suited to the eighteenth than to the twentieth century." An Englishman, Dampier, living in Mindanao in 1686, has probably left the first authentic account of the use of manila fiber. The first record of exportations of the fiber from the Philippines is about 1850. There will be found in the appendix a table showing the gradual increase in the production of the fiber. In 1922 experimental plantings of this particular plant were made in Calcutta, and in 1877 in Madras. In both instances the plants grew reasonably well, but the fiber produced was of inferior quality. Later experiments in abaca in the Andaman Islands, in Borneo and Florida and the West Indies did not result in any general cultivation in these countries. In Sumatra, several years ago, production of abaca in commercial quantities was started and this fiber is now being exported to the United States and other countries. A few years ago abacd was introduced into Panama and it was the experiments in Panama which indicated that a satisfactory abaca can be grown in the Western Hemisphere. Production on a large scale in the Western Hemisphere and extracting the fiber by machine process as yet present a problem, in that the machine-stripping process involves the extraction, without separation, of the weaker fibers of the plant stalk as well as the stronger fibers, so that the result is a total of fibers weaker in tensile strength than would be obtained by hand-stripping processes, whereby the different grades of fibers can be kept separate. It is entirely possible that the use of large machine-stripped abacd will necessitate changes in the modern idea of what is a suitable fiber for cordage. The abaca plant is a large tree-like herb. The stalk rises from a perennial root stock. The common banana and abaca are closely related species of the same genus. The banana plant produces a fiber, similar in appearance to abaca, but lacks strength. There are different varieties of abaca, some times as many as six or eight in one locality, and the differences are found in the color of stalk and leaves, the tendency to produce " suckers " and in features of fiber strength. In the Philippines, abaca is grown mainly in eight different Provinces. There will be found in the appendix a list of these Provinces. The total abaca acreage in 1921 was reported to be 1,354,000 acres and in 1925 it was 1,178,938 acres. The acreage in 1928 was 1,187,403 acres. The annual production of abaca in the islands and the average production per acre are shown in the table included in the appendix. The most favored location for abacd is along the eastern and southern coasts of the Philippines, but it is distributed throughout the greater portion of the archipelago. It is most successfully cultivated between parallels 16 and 15, northern. latitude, meridians 121 and 125 east. According to the best authorities, it may be cultivated up to 1,000 or 1,200 meters above sea level. The extent of land at present under cultivation or suitable for abacd can not be definitely estimated, inasmuch as the plant is frequently grown on small and widely scattered areas in the mountain section. From 750 to 1,350 plants are set to the hectare (2.471 acres). The first stalks are ready for cutting after 20 months to 3 years, and after the first harvesting it is customary to cut over a plantation every 6 or 8 months. The extraction of fiber commences as soon as possible after the cutting of the stalk, a matter of hours. Hand stripping is accomplished by drawing a strip cut from the plant stalk between a knife blade and a block of wood, thus scraping the pulp from the fiber. The stripping apparatus is moved about in a" al L~ 61Z INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS the Philippines from place to place, as it is more easily transported than the fiber. There is some machine stripping in Davao by small power machines simulating hand stripping and by large Prieto or Corona machines, similar to those used in Yucatan, Mexico, for sisal. After the fiber has been stripped it is hung on bamboo poles to dry, which takes from three or four hours to two days. It is then tied in bundles and, in this condition, transported by ponies, caraboas, or other similar methods to the nearest market. The yield of fiber varies greatly, from 375 to 2,500 kilos per hectare. A yield of 1,000 kilos per hectare would be considered good. The average yield in 1928 was 453 kilos per hectare. In the Philippine Islands the fiber is used not only for cordage but in the manufacture of cloth, the native dress of both sexes in almost all parts of the archipelago being from sinamay or abaca cloth. Finer grades are used in the manufacture of native hat braids, and,in recent years there have been increasing quantities used in Japan for the manufacture of paper, the fiber replacin'x the mulberry bark for this purpose. (See appendix, p. 8.) When the farmer or grower reaches the nearest market he sells to a Chinese middleman or to a representative of large exporting firms in Manila. Mr. Lyman P. Hammond, in his report, 1928, to the governor general, covering a survey of marketing conditions in the Philippine Islands. states: "But the fact that the values assigned to the abac't products exported exceed the values assigned to the production of the crop, indicates that a rather extensive industry may intervene between the product as it leaves the farm and as it goes into commercial consumption." The fiber finally reaches a government grading station. AiePPIEN1)IX T) Production of lManila Cordage in the United States Pounds Po-sndI'; 1909 --- —------- 1125, 789, 435 1923 --- —------- 92, 265, 664 1914_ --- —------- 104, 909, 172 1925 -1 --- —--------- _ 101, 0)05, 553 1919___ --- —--- 123, 439, 000 1927-' --- —----- 1105, 614, 007 1921 ----------- 71, 841, 649 1929 --- —------ 103, 379, 194 U. S. Census Bureau. 2 Obtained by applying ratio of average of 1921, 1923, 1925, 1927 census figures to average of Cordage Institute figures for same years, to Cordage Institute figures for 1929. Census figures for 1929 not available. APPENDIX E Prioduction- of Abaca Production: Production Year Pounds Acreage per acre Year Pounds Acreage | per acre (pounds) (pounds) 1818 1 ---- 91,840 ------------ ---- 1917 3 --- —- 354, 837,762 1,207,083 1,038.32 1825 1 - 618, 240- - -- - 1918 3 ---- 367,867,584 1,266,403 1,069.16 1850 I - 19,176,640 - 1 1919 327,032,124 1,273,950 958.96 1870 ------ 70,394,240 - 19203....... 363,938,644 1,382,162 1,005.24 1890' -- 152,015,360 -------- --- -. 19213....... 238, 877,226 1,354,332 848. 70 19002 2 — 257, 560, 000.- - 1922 266, 858, 008 1,223,113 1, 009. 64 1910 3 - 371,268,520 1,170,062 782.63 1923' 416,424,684 1,268,659 1,210.26 1911 --- 378,925,752 1,524,087 936.95 19243. --- — 435,816,348 1,199,272 1.163.98 1912 ' --— 3 351,559,053 1,069,456 811.22 1925 3 ----- 397,903,840 1 1,178,938 1,038.32 1913 ---- 309, 791,122 909,848 842.10 1926 3 -- 401,318, 766 1,215,852 1,036.12 1914 3 ---- 303,431,356 1,080,983 952.36 1927 3 380, 901,966 1,186,447 998.64 1915 ' --- —-I 339,932,764 1,131,377 1,027.28 1928 ------- 394,107,520 1,187,881 998. 64 1916 3 336,766,484 1,108,640 1,014.08 1929 4.... 437, 252, 214.. ---------- i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 Exports of abaca from the Philippine Islands. Source: Farmers' Bulletin No. 12, published by Department of Interior, Bureau of Agriculture, entitled "Abaca, Manila Hemp." 2 Abaca received at island ports, compiled by Ienry W. Peabody & Co. 3 Production. Source: Statistical bulletins of the Philippine Islands, compiled by the bureau of commerce and industry, the government of the Philippine Islands. 4 Fiber graded and inspected (this does not include complete production). Source: Fiber Standardization Board, government of the Philippine Islands statistics. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS APPENDIX F Exports of abacd to Japan Bales 1 1919_-___ --- —------— _ 40, 675 1925______ --- —---- 1920 --- —------------- 69,310 1926__ _____ --- —---- 1921 ---_____ --- —----- 161, 520 1927____ --- —--------- 1922 _ —_ _ --- —----— _ 202, 376 1928______ --- —------- 1923-____-___ --- —— __ - 249, 574 1929____ --- —-------- 1924-2__. ___......... 2196, 863 1 Bale =274 pounds. 2Affected by earthquake. APPENDIX G 313 Bales 1 170, 274 236, 908 259, 908 318, 788 363, 500 Provinces in the Philippine Archipelago where Abacd is Principally Grown Commnercially Province or District of pro- Localities comprising district island uction Localities comprising district island duction Albay ---------- North Albay__.. Tabaco district and all towns northeast of Bato-Legaspi railroad track, including Manito and islands to the east. Do --- —----- South Albay —.. Legaspi district and all towns on the line and southeast of the BatoLegaspi railroad track. Catanduanes. — North Catandu- Calolbon, Pandan, and Panganiban districts. anes. Do --- —----- South Catandu- Virac district, including Bato and Baras. anes. Leyte --- —------ East Leyte ----- All towns from Tacloban to Abuyog, including Pastrana, Dagami, Burawen, and La Paz. Do --------- West Leyte-. All towns on the northern, western, and southern parts of Leyte. North Cama- North Cama- Daet district and all towns in the Province of North Camarines. rines. rines. South Cama- South Cama- Naga, Iriga, Lagonoy districts, and all towns in the Province of South rines. rines. Camarines. Sorsogon North Sorsogon Donsol, Pilar, Castilla, Sorsogon, Bacon, and Prieto Diaz, and barrios of these towns. Do --- —----- South Sorsogon_ All remaining towns on and south of Sorsogon-Gubat provincial road, including the islands of Masbate and Ticao. Samar --- —------ North Samar ---- Catarman and Laoang districts. Do --- —---- Northwest Sa- All towns from Allen to and including Calbayog and Catbalogan mar. districts. Do --- —----- South Samar. — Southern and eastern coast of Samar. Mindanao --- —-- North Minda- Surigao, Agusan, Bukidnon, Misamis, and Lanao Provinces. nao. Do --- —--- South Minda- Davao, Cotabato, and Zamboanga. nao. Jolo --- —-------- Jolo --- —------- Sulu Archipelago. The committee resumed its session at the expiration of the recess. AFTER RECESS The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. STATEMENT OF FELIPE MABILANGAN, SYRACUSE, N. Y. Mr. MABILANGAN. My name is Felipe Mabilangan; 303 Waverly Avenue, Syracuse, N. Y.; school of citizenship and public affairs, Syracuse University. My occupation is that of a student and a private citizen, representing no one. However, I do represent something more important. I am here speaking in the name of Philippine freedom. Members of the committee, I am appearing here not as a political leader or a patriot of the Filipino people, but as a private citizen. 314 INDEPENDENCE FORI THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS I am equally interested, as our political leaders are, in asking for immediate Philippine independence. It is very essential, indeed, that in our present-day democracy private citizens participate interestedly in public hearings like this, especially when the fate of those private citizens is in the balance of your judgment. Neither do I pretend to be a political leader of Philippine national affairs nor do I intend to ambitiously and unthinkingly condemn the officialdom of our people whatever attitude and spirit they take for the interest and welfare of all Filipino citizens. The best thing I can do is criticize and observe the activities of our leaders. The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. In what part of the Philippine Islands is your home? Mr. MABILANGAN. I come from the Province of Batangas. I belong to the poorest family in our home town. The CHAIRMAN. What town? Mr. MABILANGAN. San Jose, Batangas. It is about 25 miles from the city of Manila. The CHAIRMAN. In the island of Luzon MIr. MABILANGAN. Yes. sir. Senator VANDENBERG. When vou speak of independence, are you thinking of continuing free-trade relations with the United States, or are Tyou thinking of independence with all the economic features that go with it? iMr. MlABILANGAN. The trade question is in your possession; but ill I am asking is absolute Philippine independence, regardless of the trade question. You may cut the free-trade relation, or vou may continue our free-trade relationship. The CHAIRMIAN. What do you think would be the economic effect on the island of Luzon if you secure iedie imndependence Mr. MABILANGAN. We might predict that it might be bad, that we might have something like an economic slump; but in time we would also recover. We can regain our economic standing in our own trade. The first thing we want is freedom. Then whatever happens in the future, whether we become economically wealthy or not, we will take the consequences. The CH1AIRMAN. You say youl (lo not care whether you have economic ruin or not? Mr. MABILAN-GAN. My main point is absolute independence for the Philippine Islands. I dlo not favor naval bases or anything of the sort. The CHAIRMAN. I did not quite understand that. Mr. IMABILANGAN. Naval bases in the Philippines. The CHIAIRMAN. You do not favor that part of the King bill which provides for the United States having a footing there? Mr. MABILANGAN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do vou favor the granting of any special privileges to the United States? Mr. MABILANGAN. Well, for the United States Government the privilege of exploitation of natural resources, our natural resources in Mindanao. The CHAIRMAN. Just what do you mean by granting the United States Government special privileges in Mindanao? Mr. MABILANGAN. Something like agreements between the two countries, the independent government and the United States, in INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 315 the exploitation of economic natural resources for the benefit of both peoples. The CHAIRMAN. But our Government never has followed the practice of going into the exploitation of any lands in foreign countries. Do you mean the granting of concessions to American corporations? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes, possibly; if it would be for the benefit of both peoples; that is, to develop these backward regions in Mindanao for the benefit of both peoples. The CHAIRMAN. You do not favor the granting of any concessions in the Philippines similar to those which Cuba granted to the United States in Cuba? Mr. MABILANGAN. No, sir. May I complete my statement? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MABILANGAN. Perhaps I may not be able to answer your crossexamination, for the simple reason that I am neither a practical politician nor a smart lawyer. I am only an honest man. Therefore I can't assure you whether I can give you satisfaction upon your cross-examination. The CHAIRMAN. At any rate, I am not a lawyer. Mr. MABILANGAN. Good for you! The CHAIRMAN. You are not likely to receive the cross-examination which was given to another Philippine citizen the other day. Mr. MABILANGAN. I do not think so. However, I do qualify myself as a political observer and a student of public affairs. Qualifying for both, in my study and observation I find and conclude in my own analysis that the Filipinos, as a people, are not at all any less capable in handling their own national affairs in their own ways and methods than any people on earth I have observed and studied. This may seem a strange and too sweeping generalization to you, but specific illustration and instances can be cited by using the comparative method of approach. May I compare the Philippines with the most advanced republic of the south, Argentine. The Philippines has a population of 13,000,000 with an area of 114,000 square miles; Argentine has a population of 10,000,000 with an area of 1,153,118 square miles. The Philippines has 1,300,000 school children from village schools to private and public universities. Argentine has an enrollment of 1,190,000 in public schools, private and public universities. In Philippine colleges and universities there are more than 30,000 enrolled students; in Argentine there are only 17,000 enrolled students. Furthermore, there are 1,500 Filipino students studying here and abroad while Argentine has hardly 300. I compare the national education of both countries because I believe that education is the only measuring rod to determine the national prosperity, peace, and order of a people. Now, take another illustration that will immensely interest us. May I compare my country with the United States? I ask your permission because this reminds me of my talk to a Syracuse audience when I compared the Philippines with the U. S. A. One woman shouted to me, " How dare you compare my great country with yours, the home of the wild people! " This is in regard to national election, government and politics of both countries. In your presidential 316 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS election of 1920 there were 54,000,000 qualified voters, and those who voted numbered about 27,000,000, one half of whom were women. That leaves about 14,000,000 men voters. This means that only 11 per cent of your total population voted in the 1920 presidential election. It was not any better, considering men voters, in 1924, nor in 1928. In the Philippine national election of 1925, 10 per cent of the total population voted, not considering the fact that some Provinces have appointive or nonelective officers. The percentage of the qualified voters that actually went to the polls and voted in the islands is even much higher than that in the United States. In 1928 the percentage was almost 90 per cent; here only 50 to 55 per cent. The important thing is not the election itself, it is the kind of public officials elected to office. In the islands, those who are known nationally and are most capable in running our national affairs are generally elected to office. It is the contrary here. Taken averagely, our Philippine Legislature has a higher class of intellect and government experience than any State legislature of the Union. Referring to Miss Smith and Mr. Kingsly of the school of citizenship and public affairs, Syracuse University, they will show us that from 1915 to 1925 the New York legislature was composed of butchers. undertakers, fish storekeepers, farmers, business men, lawyers. and what not. The CHAIRMAN. Aren't you putting lawyers rather low in the scale? Mr. MABILANGAN. My professor in the university was beaten by a lawyer in the election. The CHAIRMAN. That gives you a rather low opinion of lawyers? Mr. MABILANcGAN. Our Philippine Assembly can even compare favorably with the House of Representatives of your Congress. How many average American educated men can name more than two Menmbers of the lower House here? Not even a college student or a high-school pupil can tell offhand who his district representative in. This is true in Syracuse, supposedly a very enlightened city in political education. But in the islands, any man whether he is e(lucated or not. can tell offhand who the speaker is, who his district representative is. And ask him what he thinks of him, and he will tell you that what he wants of him is to be of public service and that he must do something good for the public welfare of his particular district. Our government is like that of any civilized country of Europe, ldemocraticallv organized. Our officials, members of our assembly, are at least college graduates, have gone through at least government civil service, or have held public office of importance in the province. The cream of our intellectuals, our thinkers of note, our men of public confidence are the ones being elected to run our own government. The morale of our government and politics is as high as, if not higher than. that of the United States. I say this witlh great reluctance, of course, but since the facts are there, it is hard to avoid them. Senator VANDENBNEIG. Are you familiar with any p)art of the United States except New York? Mr. AABILAN —GAN. No. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHlLIPPINE ISLANDS 317 Senator VANDENBERG. You are at a disadvantage, then, in making a comparison. Mr. MABILANGAN. I might be. I might extend my studies into illinois The CHAIRMAN. You did not come through Michigan on your way to the university. Mr. MABILANGAN. Your bossism, your rule behind the scene, your lobbies, your huge amount of political expenditures, your very evident grafts and corruptions of the Tammany Hall and of the Hague and Thompson and Vare machines of city politics, your ballot-box machinations of the South and of Cook County-these are all the ills of politico-democratic institutions. Elihu Root said in 1915: From Fenton to Conklin, from Conklin to Platt our political characterizations and the passing of State bills are not done in the legislative office in Albany; they are done with great secrecy in Broad Street, New York City. It is Conklin, and "Me too" Platt. Will you let our people study and learn these machinations of your Government and your political scandals before you get rid of us and leave us alone to our own national existence? I take politics and government as another illustration, because it is in the government interest that the safety and security of the state are promoted. The health of our people is good. In 1928 tthere were 47 government hospitals, 1,065 free dispensaries for barrio, village, and town folks and there were about a million patients treated therein per annum. Who would say that our people do not go to hospitals and do not live under modern sanitation? These patients are treated free of charge under our government, a sign of advancement in the state. Compare our death rate per thousand with those of the other countries. Philippines, 17 per cent; Spain, 29 per cent; Austria, 24 per cent; Italy, 20 per cent; Japan, 15 per cent; Venezuela, 19 per cent, not mentioning other countries of the south and in the Orient. Our financial condition is excellent, according to the report of the Governor General. The following will show the receipts, expenditures, and surplus of the insular government in 1928: Total revenue___ --- —-— _______________ 103, 453, 808 Total expenditures-_________ --- —-------------- __ 90, 311 320 Surplus for the year ________________-____________- 13, 142, 488 Let us see what our politicians are doing with the money. Last session our legislature appropriated:18,000,000 for elementary education alone and P10,000,000 for health and other public-welfare purposes. The financial condition of our municipal governments, city and provincial branches, is also sound. Last year in the provincial and municipal governments the surplus was about 16,000,000 that of the city of Manila was about P1,000,000. May I compare this financial status with that of the governments of Chicago and of the Cook County, your most progressive city of the world? The CHAIRMAN. Who told you that Chicago was the most progressive city in the world? Mr. MABILANGAN. I read it in the paper. Senator VANDENBERG. You read it in the Chicago Tribune? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes; that is right. 318 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The Strawn committee says that Chicago is busted if not totally bankrupt. The CHAIRMANL. Do you agree that Chicago is the most progressive city in the world? Mr. MABILANGAN. No; I do not. Teachers, employees, and street workers have not been paid for two or three months back. That could never happen in the Philippines, or the political leaders would go to the mountains. Those New York business men, possessed with philanthropy and virtues of charity and aid are needed more by the Chicago citizens than they are by Manila and Filipino citizens. In the islands they don't have to worry about house rents, cosmetics, and luxuries. Our social condition is also good. Relatively speaking, we have fewer criminals in the islands than in any civilized country of the world. Social, industrial, business, and political racketeering with the underworld in most modern cities of this country are something unknown to our people in the islands. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have prohibition there? Mr. MABILANGAN. No. Thank God, we have not. I take this opportunity of advising our fellow citizens that when they go back home they should not tell their folks of some bad things they see here. Let us bring back to our home something finer and more wholesome. If some of our American friends can not come back to this country without advertising us as savages and wild people, let us try to console and compensate our annihilated souls by telling our brethern at home that our social and educational experiences in this country have been of the best and finest. All of our people do believe in organized society and ordered government. You can find exceptions of course among the mountain tribes, but they are getting educated and are treated well by our government. Our Mohammedan brothers do believe in modern education; they go to public schools and universities. Only recently the son of the Datu Piang finished at our State university with honors. Our women are also interested in public affairs and according to foreign observers they are more modern than those in South American countries, Spain, southeastern European countries and all oriental countries. Like men they engage in professional and public careers, and they become teachers and social-welfare workers. They establish clubs and other modern organizations for community interests. When I go back home I could certainly advocate woman suffrage. A country whose government sends its millions of children to schools; a country as enlightened as the most modern country of the south, Argentina; a country whose affairs are run efficiently by the natives; a country whose health and social welfare are comparable with those of any civilized nation of the world; a country whose government meets its debts and international obligations; a country that has peace and order, that has a well-systematized judiciary and whose citizens bring their disputes to the courts run by the natives; a country whose people have been in constant struggle and movement for freedom-such a country is entitled to her independence. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 319 I admit that our economic condition is backward, the exploitation of our natural resources and the development of our home manufactures and industries is very slow. Our social and political standards are very high compared to our economic development, and our wants for luxuries and high living standard are even in higher proportion, and have gone beyond our economic and industrial structure. What is the reason for this unhappy situation? The fundamental cause lies upon Congress that keeps holding us, in spite of its promise made in 1918. We know that nothing is harder than to fulfill a promise but nothing would be more difficult and graver than to remain under a state of uncertainty and dependency. I don't want to blame anybody for this sad situation, but there is still hope for us to readjust ourselves into a new economic structure, It seems to me that the present relationship between the United States and the Philippine Islands has been and will be creating problems, which in the future will be beyond solution. Some of these problems have already appeared on the scene, namely, political and economic. Others will come sooner or later, such as social and psychological, racial, and, shall I say, international. Their evidence and my lack of time prohibit further explanation into microscopic details. However, mayT I call attention to the recent California riot, which wounded three Filipinos and killed one, as a great reminder of these problems. Shall we prevent those riots or let circumstances stay for other racial, economic, and emotional clashes. To effect the prevention, the restriction of the Filipinos coming here, is logical because you have done it to other Asiatics but would you not recognize our independent nation first before you restrict our Philippine laborers here? Why do our young laborers come here anyway? Not only due to shipping interests' propaganda but also this-I can recall that in my high-school days my American teacher scolded me for not spelling and pronouncing correctly the phrase " United States of America." He was enraged and said to me: Why,_ you merciful idiot, you can not even spell and pronounce the most popular phrase and the greatest name in the world, your own mother country whose flag you kiss and adore. Young pupils and their parents do believe that United States is also their country (which is, of course, erroneous), the Philippines being under your flag, your care, and protection. Do you blame them for believing that the United States is also their country, and hence their coming here, when they are taught first of all to kiss, honor, adore, and worship your flag, and recite your own Constitution? Some are even predicting our economic ruin. I don't; I only prophesy an economic slump and that normalcy and stability will soon follow. The prediction, however, is good for us because our political and economic leaders will always be on the lookout, that when we as a people are left unguided we will walk with great caution. In waking on a thorny field it is better to walk alone than with a guide giving you a gold cane which hardly fits in the clearing of thorns in the field. 320 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Continued rule will surely kill our national sense due to luxuries offered by American machine-age civilization. Such a danger is by far greater and more deadly than any possible ruin. Suppose there will be economic ruin, for the sake of argument? Will that mean that the Filipinos will starve? I don't think so. It must be understood that ours is an agricultural country. Who will then suffer in case we lose our free and big markets in the United States? Naturally those who are engaged in sugar industry, the hacenderos, and the laborers. I do not simply mind these hacenderos, but what about the Filipino workers, what will they do? It is known that although they are our workers, they own pieces of land and homes of their own. Will they starve? Indeed not! They cal turn to other agricultural pursuits, go to Mindanao. being forced by economic natural law, and establish themselves there to rice, corn. coconut, and rubber growing. The last two being needed by temperate countries, I am sure that England, United States, and even Germany (through the prospective international bank) will loan us capital and offer their markets just as well, unless by that time the American western farmers will have produced rubber to be protected. Suppose by heavenly miracles that we don't get their capital for the utilization of Mindanao, then our people, the great bulk of our masses, can still depend upon their own produce such as rice, corn, and even root crops for their daily subsistence; they will still be happy, free, and more developed morally and spiritually than when they would find themselves in a state so materially entangled. rhe development of the islands in its broad economic basis lies only in her free spirit, her free position, that will create dynamic energy and drive il her own way, which she thinks will lead her to economic stability and independence. Economic stability can not be achieved by any manner of means by being dependent upon the more economically powerful. To prove, let us compare the Philippines in its economic and trade development with those of new independent countries. From 1920 to 1928 the following countries have increased their percentage of trade greatly. Per cent Per cent Chile ----------- 66 Salvador — ------ - o103 Brazil-_______ --- —-------- 99 Siam_______ --- —---------- 75 Bolivia_ --- —--------- 30 Colombia_ --- —_______________ — - 102 Costa Rica_ ----. --- —--- - 40 Ecuador ---__________ _ ---- 75 Peru_ --- —-------------- 58 Guatemala ----_____.____ —_ _ 56 Persia --- —------- ------- 85 Paraguay_-__ --- —----- __ 99 Venezuela --- —----- ------- 236 Argentina-____ --- —-------- 52 In 1920 Philippine foreign trade amounted to 1601,124,276 while in 1928 it was only P579,422,888, which means a substantial decrease of about 20 per cent. Why? Other smaller countries keep increasing their trade while we, with an advantage of the biggest market in the world, are on the decline. Our export trade to China in 1928 was only three and one-half million pesos while our imports from same was seven million in our great disfavor. To Japan our exports were about 16,000,000 while our imports were 1P13,000,000. Can this unfavorable balance of trade with our supposedly natural and promising markets in the future be remedied? Yes, and by giving the Philippines her independence INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 321 and her free position in international economics. We do not mind losing our huge market here which does not develop our natural resources, trade, and industry so very well, but we can surely have markets in China, Japan, and other oriental countries and also in Europe. It may take us time to develop and wait for these prospective markets, which is all right for us because we have patience. We can patiently wait just as much as we have patiently waited for our freedom. The CHAIRMAN. When you contrasted the foreign trade you took the year 1920, did you? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And then the year 1928? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The year 1920 appears, according to the statistics, to have been a very extraordinary year. In 1919 the total trade with the United States appears to have been 1264,000,000, and with our countries *200,000,000. In the year 1920 the trade with the United States jumped P135,000,000; with other countries it remained about the same, increasing but little, achieving in 1920 a very enormous volume amounting to P395,000,000. But the very next year it fell off again 1P150,000,000, so that the trade with the United States was 1248,000,000 and with other countries P158,000,000. So that the figures you have taken are very unfair figures, because they represent a postwar maximum, with sugar at an extraordinarily high price and rubber and everything else at high prices. Mr. MABILANGAN. There is not much rubber in that. The CHAIRMAN. Chiefly due to the sugar? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. If we take the figures since American occupation, from 1899 down to 1928, we get a very different story, for in 1899 the total trade with the United States was 110,000,000 and with foreign countries P57,000,000, whereas in 1928 it had grown to the total of 1398,000,000 with the United States and 1180,000,000 with foreign countries. Except for the single postwar year of 1920 which you mentioned, there appears to have been a steady increase. Mr. MABILANGAN. But my point is thisThe CHAIRMAN. The point is that you take, an unfortunate year. It is not a fair comparison. Mr. MABILANGAN. Compared with other new independent countries like those I have mentioned, we are not keeping pace with those countries. They have been increasing, most of them, from 50 to 100 per cent. We have increased our foreign trade in spite of the fact that we had the biggest market with the United States. The CHAIRMAN. The largest increase you mentioned was Venezuela, which increase is due to the enormous increase in the exports of oil. In most of the other countries there is no production of sugar, anyway; so that there was no extraordinary amount in 1920. Your figures give a very false impression of the actual state of affairs. Mr. MABILANGAN. The figures might, but the point is a correct impression, because, in spite of the fact that we had a big market here, we did not even increase our trade so much as those other 92109-30 ---PT 3-6 322 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS countries have increased; for example, the South American countries. They have duties, too, in other markets, and we do not in this country. I think that under Philippine independence we could develop even bigger markets than we have here in the United States. We have our natural markets in Asia. The Continent is supposed to be our natural market. The CHAIRMAN. What is keeping you out of them to-day? Mr. MABILANGAN. They are taxed. They can not compete favorably with American products that are free of duty. Besides, the United States is our big market. That prevents us mainly from creating markets in Europe and in England. We have developed under a United States market basis. We are not developed under an economic basis, stating it more specifically. Our export trade with China in 1928 was only 1'3,500,000, while our imports from same were P7,000,000 in our great disfavor. It is said that we must have first our economic independence before political freedom. Those who believe in this theory have not studied farther, I am sorry to say. They are even unjust to historical and economic evidence. I do not blame them. They would not bother scanning the pages of history and find out for the Filipinois whom they are willing to serve, which regions of the world had been economically indepen'dent and flourishing before attaining their own political and national sovereignty; they are too busy in the routine of making profits that make them too hard-boiled to understand a theory of political economy, thereby losing a moral ideal which is extraordinarily more important than any kind of luxuries obtainable. Political scientists beginning with Plato and Aristotle through Rousseau, Montesquieu, Mills, Bentham, Adam Smith, Wilson, and to our contemporary authority Professor Meriam of Chicago, are well agreed that political freedom is essential first as a precedent to any further development of any country. Our most eminent authority in government, Mr. M. Kalaw, says the same thing. His study has been an exhaustive research and he has proved the theory to be true. The only verification of such a truism in order to be applicable to the Philippines as a people and as a country is to grant the Filipinos complete independence. If the belief and contention that there must be economic illndependence first before freedom be true, then we can never get our freedom, because there are only two or three economically independent nations of the world to-day, Russia, United States, and Australia. Others have to depend upon the outside supply. Economic independence, to follow the definition, means self-sufficiency of a nation: that is, a nation whose inhabitants depend upon their food supply and other home necessities in the exploitation of their own national and natural resources by economic means. Japan, England. Italy. and many others have to depend upon the outside in obtaining even their daily bread. Once cut off from the outside. it means life or death for the people. A tenant family can not develop its own economic salvation so long as the tenant is under the social and political control of the landlord. He separates, but finds it disastrous, of course, for his family He even goes so far as sacrificing one of his children. At the end, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 323 however, he finds himself and his own family more prosperous than they ever were. And he left behind him at his death his grandchildren more dynamic and vital than his sons were. What would have happened had he waited one more generation, had he thought of remaining safe and secure under the guardianship of the wealthy landlord? No doubt it would have led the tenant family into severe economic dependency so that it would have been impossible for the following generation to break the ties of bondage, and his children's children would have forever remained in that chained life of tenantry. He, the father, would have been condemned for not thinking,and acting otherwise. The CHAIRMAN. When you wrote asking for a hearing you said you would take five minutes. Then you said you needed half an hour, and you have already used an hour. You say you represent no one but yourself. We are glad to hear you and will be glad to -print your entire speech, but I can not allow you more than five minutes more unless there are some questions that the Senators wish ito aSk you. Senator HAWES. I would like to ask a question. There are some advocates who think that in 30 years' time they.can change the characteristics of your people. Do you think it is possible that the color of your hair, for instance, can be changed in:30 years? Mr. MABILANGAN. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What witness was it that said the characteristics.of the people could be changed in 30 years? Senator HAwEs. I did not say that. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I am sorry. I though you said some witness had said that. Senator HAWES. No. I just want to get some facts about this 30 -year period, whether some men had in mind that they could make Anglo-Saxons out of Filipinos at the end of 30 years. The CHAIRMAN. I did not hear anybody express that opinion. Senator HAWES. Neither did I. I am just trying to find out what is in the mind of a man that puts 30 years' limitation on it, and I was asking this witness whether he thought the characteristics of the ~Filipinos could be changed in 30 years. Mr. MABILANGAN. No. It is pretty hard to determine. We might increase our wants, our luxuries — Senator HAWEs. I mean, your characteristics, the way you think, your features, or anything else. Mr. MABILANGAN. NO. Senator HAWES. They would not change in 30 years? Mr. MABILANGAN. No. The color of the hair woulid be the same in 30 years. We would become older and more wrinkled. Senator 2HAWES. That is all. I think that most of these gentle-men who are advocating 30 years will not be here at the end of the,experiment. I was asking the question seriously, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know what they mean when they talk about 30 years. What ado they expect to change? Do they expect to change the physical appearance, or the way a man's brain works? Do they expect to -make:Anglo-Saxon citizens out of Malays? Would there be any changes in '30 years in the characteristics of the people? 324 INDEPEN-DENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. MABILANGAN. I don't think so; no. Senator METCALF. Has there not been any change in the last 30 years? Has not your education been improved, your health been better, hospitals increased — Mr. MABILA-GAN. Yes. We are more advanced than most of the countries like China, more advanced than Java. We have studied lots of your economic approaches to life. Senator METCALF. Have you not advanced more in the last 30 years than you did in 100 years previously? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAXN. Have vou not advanced more in educationS How many school children were there in the Philippines before the American occupation? Mr. MABILAN-GAN. I do not know, but I suppose there were hardly any. Senator METCALF. Have the schools there been better, in your lifetime? 1Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. Senator METCALF. And there has been constant improvement? Mr. MABILANGAN. Constant improvement; yes. Senator METCALF. And your health standard has been better? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes; I said so. We have a very good health standard. Senator METCALF. Do you owe any of that to the United States? Mr. MARILAN-GAN. No. Senator METCALF. Not a bit? The CHAIRMAN. You do not acknowledge the work of any of the American doctors or hospitals there? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes: we do indeed, but I think, whether we were independent or notThe CHAIRMAN. No; that is not the question. The question is, what change has been made in 30 years? Mr. MABILANGAN. We have improved a lot in health standards and educational standards. We have improved a lot, as well, in our social standards. The CHAsIRAN.. So, you really have made some very considerable changes in the last 30 years. Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes, indeed. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think you would have made that same progress if you had been independent in 1900? Do you think you would have made the same progress in the last 30 years? Mr. MABILANGAN. I can not predict, but I am afraid we will be so highly Americanized that we will loseSenator VANDENBERG. No. I say, do you think you would have made the same progress you have made in the last 30 years if you had been independent? Mr. MABILANGAN. I think so. Perhaps you would say that we would not have progressed as much as we have progressed under the United States rule. We would have progressed, in my opinion, to the same extent, if not more. Senator VANDENBERG. How many different languages are spoken in the Philippines? Mr. MABILANGAN. There are at least four or five main languages, including Spanish, of course. Most of the people can speak Tagalog, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 325 but English is very widely spoken. I come from the mountains, from the villages. Senator VANDENBERG. IS there a religious problem, as related to the Mohammedans, in the Philippine Islands? Mr. MABILANGAN. No; I can not say it is a problem. It is not even as bad as your religious problem here, with the different sects, the Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Senator VANDENBERG. Why is it that native governors have had to be withdrawn in the two Mohammedan Provinces and American governors substituted? Mr. MABILANGAN. I think that was a matter of executive policy with Mr. Wood. When Harrison was there he had some native governors. Senator VANDENBERG. YOU do not think it was necessary? Mr. MABILANGAN. I think it is better to have native officials in the Mohammedan Provinces. Senator VANDENBERG. There was no trouble over the native governors Mr. MABILANGAN. No. There is no problem, but during the Wood regime I was in the Philippines, and there were lots of disturbances. The CHAIRMAN. You say most of the people speak Tagalog? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How many people in Mindanao speak Tagalog? Mr. MABILANGAN. Most of the Christian Filipinos in Mindanao already speak Tagalog. Senator HAWES. You have about the same number of different languages as they have in Switzerland, have you not? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. We have one more, because Switzerland has three. Senator HAWES. A Swiss has to speak three languages, and probably four. On all railroad trains, and everywhere a man moves, the sign is put in three different languages, so that the most scientific people in the worldMr. MABILANGAN. You can find, in New York City, at least six or seven languages spoken. Senator HAWES. The Moros compose about 4 per cent of your population, do they not? Mr. MABILANGAN. Four per cent of the population? Senator HAWES. Yes; only about 4 per cent. Mr. MABILANGAN. Less than that, I think. There are 13,000,000 people in the Philippines, and there are only 500,000 Moros. I am not sure about the number, but I think it would not be much greater than 500,000. Senator HAWES. With the exception of the Moros, the rest of them profess the Christian religion? Mr. MABILANGAN. The Christian religion; and, of course, about 400,000 are pagans. I am sorry to say I am going to this kind of religion-free thinking, or paganism. Senator HAWES. I was interested in knowing how long you thought this " nurse" performance ought to continue, and whether, in 30 years, it would change the characteristics of the Filipinos, their manner of thinking, their appearance or anything else. Mr. MABILANGAN. No; I do not think so. Even if independence is given us right away, we can progress, because we already have the 326 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ingredients. We have that factor that will enable us to develop our nation materially, spiritually, and morally. Senator HAWES. During the war how many American troops were. in the Philippines? Mr. MABILANGAN. I can not tell you offhand the exact figure. Senator HAwEs. They were all removed, were they not, as a matter of fact? Mr. MABILANGAN. Yes. Senator HAWES. Did you have any disorder? Mr. MABILANGAN. No; I do not think so. I come from the villages. I can not give you any expression on that. I have lived -all my life in the Philippines. Senator HAWES. Did you have any trouble with the Moros while the American troops were away? Mr. MABILANGAN. No. I remember that during the war the American Army was away. We did not have any disturbance with the Moros. I remember that during Harrison's regime there were native governors appointed to take the place of those Americans: who resigned, and there was no general disturbance, compared to Wood's administration, when Mr. Wood changed the administration and put Americans in their places. I experienced that, because T was in the Government school at that time. I think, and I can still remember it very well. Agitation, nationalism, petty demonstrations, and irrational thinkin(r in the islands could be stopped only by granting independence; otherwise thev will be a disease germ in the mind of my people which will sooner or later be more destructive than constructive in the upbuilding of a virile race. Another disease germ in the mind of my people is that phycholo(rical term called inferiority complex being developed in the miakeup of a little dependent brown Filipino in his relations with the more cunning American carpetbagger. Social cleavage is a factor that makes for the stupidity of a class considered to be subj'utiated and thereby treated as such. A great many evils are connected with national independence;: sad experiences will surely be encountered if the Filipinos are to stand by themselves: but what evils would be more great, what experiences would be more sad than for a people to be dependent, parasites both politically and economically? Our danger now is clearly evident, that of being dependent upon the greatest and wealthiest Nation of the world, but the danger that we would face in case of absolute independence, whether internal or external, is only assumed by our opponents and therefore far from being true. Suppose the assumption were true. would that mean that we are afraid to face the realities of an independent life? Ours is only an aspiration at the present time. Realities can only be tackled alone, not with the aid of others. Days of exploration and conquest are gone. Moral turpitude of Nations is already a thing of the past, although some of it is left over yet. No more invasion or anything of that sort exists at the present time. Countries very well understand by a sound international foreign policy that materials could be obtained by means of mutual understanding by economic treaty agreements. There is less harm in this procedure than by roaring guns and cannons. Dollars are INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 327 substituted for bullets, to be more frank to you, but I am also warning our leaders that they must see to it that these dollars are not any heavier than bullets because they might penetrate into their bodies as well. Dollar diplomacy is good only when both parties are the beneficiaries, that both governments and peoples are getting fair and equal share. Like the United States in the Pan American politics in the American hemisphere, like Great Britain in the European continent, Japan is also willing to be a leader in oriental politics. That means that she would never be aggressive, for leadership could only be attained by friendship toward others. Her leadership could only be built upon the solidity of fair dealing, not upon the sand dunes of hostility and aggression. Surely international understanding of the present era demands the individuality of the Philippines, and Philippine individuality demands immediate and absolute independence from this country. Our common people and peasants, our common tao-there is none of this class in the islands-our farmers and workers-I am one of them-are not so ill-treated by our local politicians as our opponents try to make it appear. As a matter of fact they are more contented and happy than those in any country of the world. Study of labor conditions here, England, Italy, and Mexico will show that workers there are in much worse condition than our peasants in the islands. Most of the legislation of our assembly is designed for the education and welfare of the masses-the workers ahd peasants. Our politicians, before they ever get elected to public office, have to do something good for the public benefit. They sponsor under their means and leadership the erection of public buildings for schools and centers for the benefit of the masses. I am not praising our politicians too much; no, indeed. I also find faults in them many a time, but it is not here that I reform, criticize, and correct them, but at home. I am already in quarrel with some of our town " caciques," to be frank to you, whom I attacked in my speeches, but would our vanishing "caciques" prevent you from granting our freedom? Surely not. If our political leaders do wrong to us peasants and workers, would it be hard to correct them? It is much easier for the members of a family to curtail and correct the mistakes of the boss of that family than for them to correct the wrongdoings of some master from another foreign family.,Tre surely profited by our historic and traditional experience with Spain, and indeed we profit by our modern schooling under America, but we are afraid it would be so great and enormous that we would be unable to cope with it and absorb it so the result of the third and final analysis must be then that we certainly and absolutely will benefit and profit by a hardy and noble experience of being alone. Your granting our independence will mean your contribution to world civilization. I assure you that the future Philippine State will be a cultural blend of two different extremes of world cultureoriental and occidental; old and modern; spiritual and material. Can these two be blended, can they be reconciled? Yes; and it is in the Philippine State of to-morrow that the blend will be the medium of a correct and modern approach to life, the glorification of 328 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS an ideal for which vwe Filipinos are struggling. It may seem extremelv idealistic to Avon, but who will blame a people for having at least an ideal objective the goal of which they think is the solution of tleir own national destiny? Our universal appeal, which is not all sentimental, but moral and realistic. is to a better understanding of our present relationship, to a sence of justice and righteousness, to the historical principles upon which yoiur Nation and people have been built and founded. Our universal cry, our universal and unfailing desire is independence, real. immediate, absolute, and complete. The grantno is hns in the Conhress in the Conite Statess in you American people. If vou are going to give us our indepen(dece I simply request that this suggestion be considered, that the possibility of such a thing as the Platt amendment be avoided. I request. under your honor, absolute and complete independence under whiiclh ou do not have to assume any responsibility nor authority. We only need your good will. yoiur friendshil). and altruism that can help us realize our aspirations. The CHAIRMAN. With regard to the statement as to the number of languages spoken, it might be interesting to put in the record at this point. in view of the fact that the witness stated there were four or five languages, the fact that a survey of economic conditions in the Philippine Islands, published in 1928, written bAy Mr. Lyman P. Hamlmond. states thatWhile tile broad classificttion of Christian-Filipinos is generally used tr characterize about seven-eiights of the population, this classification must ib subdivided into at least eight different major groups. These include Visayan, Tagalog, Bicol, Ilocano, Panlgasinan, Cao'gaan Pampangan. and Zambalan. According to the W-ood-Forbes report of October 8, 1921. there are eight languages in the Philippine Islands, each of which is used by not less tlan ).00 )000 people. It lhas been alutlhoritatively stated (Prof. H. Otley Beyer. of the Unliversity of the Philippines) tliat the population includes. 4'3 etlnologlical groups speaking 7 dialects. -A table p)ublishe(d by tlie Chamber of Conlllelrce of th!e Philippine Islands states that tlie number of people speakilng Ttagalolg represent 24 per cent of the population. The next witness is Dr. Hilario Camino Moncadlo. STATEMENT OF DR. HILARIO CAMINO MONCADO, PRESIDENT FILIPINO FEDERATION OF AMERICA (INC.), LOS ANGELES, CALIF. The CHAI:RMAN. Doctor Moncado, how long woultd vou like to speak? Doctor MONCADO. About five minutes. First, Mr. Chairman. I present my credentials. Here [indicating] are the articles of incorporation of the organization I represent. The CHAIRMAN. This states that Doctor Moncado is a respected resident of the city of Los Angeles; he is president of the Filipino Federation of America; and this is signed by Frank C. Jordan, secretary of state of the State of California. Doctor IMONCADO. May I proceed? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 329 The CHAIRMAN. Yes; please proceed. Doctor MONCADO. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to introduce two resolutions as follows: RESOLUTION URGING PRESIDENT HILARIO CAMINO MONCADO TO VISIT AND INTERVIEW PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER OF THE UNITED STATES AT WASHINGTON, ). C. Whereas the members sincerely believe that through a visit and interview of the President of the United States of America by President Hilario Camino Moncado of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), will tend to strengthen the bond of friendship which binds the Filipino people and the American people; and Whereas through such interview President Moncado may be able to know the present policy of the American Government toward the national aspirations of the Filipino people; and Whereas the members of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.) believe that such an interview is very opportune and necessary at this time: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the members of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), duly assembled in its first business session, third annual national convention, in the city of Los Angeles, State of California, on December 26, 1929, urge and respectfully request President Hilario Camino Moncado, of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), to make a special trip to Washington, D. C., during the coming year 1930, to interview the Chief Executive of the Government of the United States of America, His Excellency, President Herbert Hoover. I, Fabian L. Banguis, secretary of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), hereby certify that the above resolution No. 1, was adopted on December 26, 1929, by the delegates of the third national convention of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), is correct. [SEAL.] FABIAN L. BANGUIS, Sccretary. Approved: HILARIO CAMINO MONCADO, President. RESOLUTION URGING IMMEDIATE ACTION ON THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE QUESTION Whereas the requirements as laid down in the Jones law for the national. independence of the Philippine Islands has already been fulfilled by the Filipino people; and Whereas it is the duty of every loyal Filipino to work for the national emancipation of the Philippines from the Government of the United States; and Whereas one of the purposes of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.) is to obtain peacefully the immediate and complete independence of the Philippines: Therefore, be it Resolved, That the members of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), duly assembled in its second business session, third annual national convention, at the Symphony Hall, Los Angeles, Calif., sign and send a petition to the; President of the United States of America, the Secretary of State, the United States Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Filipino Resident Commissioners, at Washington, D. C., urging them to take prompt, immediate, and favorable action on the Philippine-independence question. I, Fabian L. Banguis, secretary of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), hereby certify that the above resolution No. 7, was adopted on December 28, 1929, by the delegates of the third national convention of the Filipino Federation of America (Inc.), is correct. [SEAL.] FABIAN L. BANGUIS, Secretary. Approved: HILARIO CAMINO MONCADO, President. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as a respected citizen of the Philippine Islands, and owing allegiance to the United States flag, and also a resident of the city of Los Angeles and the State of California, I am here to appeal to you on a matter in which my 330 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS organization is interested, concerning the entire Pacific coast and the Territory of Hawaii. My organization has 12,000 members on the Pacific coast and 10,000 in the Territory of Hawaii. I am here as a representative of the members and delegates to the recent third national convention of the Filipino Federation of America, held at Los Angeles in the year of our Lord 1929, between December 23 and December 31. May I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I am permitted to talk freely with regard to the political situation of my country. I wish to speak particularly of the exclusion of the Filipino people. I shall speak also of the problem of the Filipino people in California. The Filipino people in California are vitally interested in the question of exclusion, and the question of the freedom of the Philippine Islands. In the first place, gentlemen, from my 15 years' residence in the State of California, I ought to be familiar with the conditions of my people on the Pacific coast and also in the Territory of Hawaii. Mv people had no idea of competing with American labor. They merely came to the State of California for the purpose of seeking an education, because that is perhaps the best and the finest thing that the American people have given to them. In coming to California they were hitting a rock. When they came to America from the Philippine Islands and arrived in California, my brethren found that they were hitting the rock on which the ship almost sank. The recent riot in California arose strictly from the labor agitation. It is my belief, as a leader of this great body composed of 22,000 Filipinos, that the independence of the Philippine Islands should be granted immediately, absolutely, and completely, for this reason: Knowing that my brother Filipinos who are now residing in Califorlnia and the Territory of Hawaii, and those who are rapidly coming in, are competincg with American labor, I wish to address myself to that phase. We never knew before that these American friends of ours, the American workingmen, were being hurt. We were informed in the Philippine Islands that the Americans were the best educators. We accepted that. I was educated in the American schools, particularly in the city of Los Angeles. Now, knowing that this tremendous influx of Filipinos from the Philippine Islands to the Hawaiian Islands and from Hawaii to California, and some of them directly from the Philippine Islands to California. is hurting my American brethren who are also struggling for bread and butter, I am speaking in sympathy with them, having resided in California for 15 years, and knowing both the American situation and the Philippine situation regarding the labor question. I am in favor, therefore, of inmmediate, complete, and absolute independence for my country, for this reason: Some of the American laboring men can hardly pay their ldues in their own organization, and for that particular reason they feel that it is the duty of the American Government to find a better solution, not by the exclusion of the Filipinos, but in some other way that will not prejudice the Philippine Islands. I have come to the conclusion that the best solution is to grant the independence of the Philippine Islands. The American people, perhaps, would be satisfied with the passage of the exclusion law, but to my mind it is not necessary for INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 331:the American people to exclude the Filipinos, because I trust the Philippine legislature will pass a law regulating the influx of Filipino people to this country, limiting it to students, members of the,diplomatic corps, those who are engaged in business, and tourists, and restricting the influx of Filipino labor to this country. We have resources in the Philippine Islands, and we need their labor:in the islands in order to cultivate the soil and to develop our resources. We also need capital, either from the Filipino people themselves or from the American people. This exclusion law will.hurt the spirit of mutual understanding between the American people and Filipino people. Senator VANDENBERG. YOU would be in favor of having the Philippine government stop the migration of laborers to the United States? Doctor MONCADO. After independence is granted. Senator VANDENBERG. Not until then? Doctor MONCADO. Not until then. Senator VANDENBERG. How many Filipinos are there in California? Doctor MONCADO. There are 35,000 in California. Senator VANDENBERG. How many are there on the Pacific coast? Doctor MONCADO. There are 65,000 Filipinos, altogether, on the Pacific coast. Senator VANDENBERG. How rapidly are they coming? Doctor MONCADO. Very fast. Senator VANDENBERG. HOW fast? Doctor MONCADO. Sometimes there will be 500 Filipinos on one boat, sometimes 200 Filipinos, sometimes 300 Filipinos, and sometimes you can not even count the number of them because there are three ports on the Pacific coast-Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. This matter has never been investigated by the United States Government nor the government of the State of California:nor the Philippine government, and consequently the scope of our knowledge of affairs on the Pacific coast is confined to our organization. The CHAIRMAN. Have you endeavored to discourage their coming? Doctor MONCADO. I shall not endeavor to discourage them from,coming, because it would be prejudicial to the principles of the American people. Senator VANDENBERG. How much of this travel is inspired by.steamship company solicitation of business? Doctor MONCADO. On what particular ground? Are you speaking.of the plantations? If so, I can answer that question. Senator VANDENBERG. Let me put it this way. Do the steamship companies advertise in the Philippine Islands very largely, urging the Filipinos to come to the United States? Doctor MONCADO. That I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think, from your knowledge of the Filipinos in California, you being president of the largest group there? What is the reason for their coming? Is it an economic reason; to secure larger wages? Doctor MONCADO. No. Their main purpose in coming to Calilornia is to study. The CHAIRMAN. To study? 332 INDEPEN-DENCE FOB THE:PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Doctor MONCADO. To study the agriculture of California, with a view to developing the resources of the Philippines in case the independence of the Philippines is granted. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you mean to say that you think they would go back to the Philippine Islands? Doctor MONCADo. Yes. sir; but so long as the Philippine Islands are under American control the Filipino people, by virtue of their feelings of patriotism and love of freedom, and through the teachings of the principles and ideas of the American people, are going to come here, because the Stars and Stripes wave over them, and consequently the Stars and Stripes attract my Filipino brothers to come to California and other parts of the United States in order to enjoy the benefit of the advantages they find here. The CHAIRMrAN. If most of them that have com e lhave come as students, then they would not be excluded under the act to which you have just referred. You have said you would like to make an exemption in the case of students. Doctor MONCADO. Ye. The CHAIRMuAN. So that it really would not affect the number that are colning in practically a-t all, would it? Doctor MONCADO. Amnerican labor in California is united in an effort against the influx of Filipinos who are cominng now to the Pacific coast, particularly California. because when they first arrive in California they must solicit positions at any cost in order to establish thelselves before ooing to school. We sav that our public schools in this country a're free. but when you come to take an engineering course or a medical course, you must payx your tuition for that particular course. and laboratory fees, and so forth. If you take a law course, youl must buy your text books, and a great many other things in order to equip yourself to study law. In the case of private schools you are forced to obtain more means in order to establish yourself than in the case of the public schools. The CHAIRMIAN. How many Filipinos in California are law students? Doctor MONCADO. We lhave so manyv law schools in California that it is very hard to tell how mlany Filipinos aret stludying law in California. The CHAIRMAN. A great number of them? Doctor MONCADO. A great number of them. The CHAIRMAN. They do not agree with the yvouing gentleman who just spoke to us a few moments ago about tle standard of lawyers. Doctor MONCADO. I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything else to offer? Doctor MONCADO. Just a few words more. I aml in favor of the immediate, complete, and absolute independence of my country. not only from the Philippine standpoint, but from the American standpoint. Senator HAWvES. Let. me ask you a question. When a man talks about Philippine independence at the end of 30 years. what do you understand by that? Do you understand that he is opposed to it'? Doctor MON.CADO. At the end of 30 years we will have independence, you say? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 333 Senator HAWES. No one has said yet that he is opposed to Philippine independence, before this committee. But various gentlemen have come here and advocated a 10-year period; some of them 20 years; and now there seems to be some suggestion of a 30-year period. Doctor MONCADO. My answer to that, Senator, is that I am for immediate independence-to-morrow-with no limitation at all. Senator HAWES. If it were put off 30 years, what would be the effect? Doctor MONCADO. The effect would be that the people of California would be hurt by the influx of Filipinos, and that is the only reason I am confining my remarks to that particular part of the country. The CHAIRMAN. It would rather crowd the law schools there, would it not? Doctor MONCADO. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. This question of the 30-year period is a very serious subject. It seems to be getting to be a stock phrase around here. I would like to know what difference 30 years would make in the characteristics of the Filipinos, in your opinion. Doctor MONCADO. If independence for the Philippines were dragged out for 30 years, the characteristics of the Philippine people, being Malays, would not change, but it might change their status of civilization. It might be good for the Filipinos, but it would not be good for the Americans in California, and I know Senator Johnson will fight to the last ditch for California. The CHAIRMAN. Your feeling is that the Malay race is not likely to change its characteristics in 30 years. Doctor MONCADO. I do not think so. For over 300 years the characteristics of the Malay race have remained the same. Therefore that civilization is pretty hard to assimilate, because the characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon civilization are entirely different from those of the Malay civilization. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, when Mr. Taft, some years ago, spoke about the progress and the necessity for time, for education, and development, so that you might be fit for independence, he was not speaking of any short period such as 30 years, or 60 years, but probably had in mind 300 years. Is that your theory? Doctor MONCADO. No; I do not think so. Philosophy, perhaps, would define it in this way, that Mr. Taft did not think of it in a million years. He never realized that the intellectual progress of the Filipino people would be realized the next day, but found, at last, that we had acquired it in 30 years, and he said " stop, I was mistaken." So, Mr. Taft, the retired Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was mistaken in his philosophy. Senator HAWES. How long did the Spanish have possession of your country? Doctor MONCADO. Over 300 years. Senator HAWES. Did they change the Malay characteristics in 300 years? Doctor MONCADO. No. The only civilization the Spaniards introduced to the Philippine Islands was the religious characteristic, but the real characteristics of the Filipino people have not changed. 334 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWEs. They tried it for some 300 years; and some of our people want to do it in 30 years. Doctor MONCADO. I beg your pardon. Senator HAWES. I say, they tried it for 300 years without a change, and now some of our people are optimistic enough to think that they can do it in 30 years. Doctor MONCADO. That is right. It may be prolonged even more,. but it will still remain the same. Filipinos maintain it is the duty as well as the privilege of every citizen to assert himself concerning the problems of his country, Thus we speak neither as a politician nor as one controlled by tlhe financial interests of the Philippines. As Filipino citizens we here aim to prove why we believe the Philippine Islands are as able to rule themselves economically as politically. We consider it presumptuous on the part of American politicians to say that because the Philippines have not established themselves economically, independence should still be denied them. In 1776 when America obtained her freedom from England, was she economically ready? It is not here necessary to relate the real economic conditions of the thirteen colonies at the time they obtained their freedom, for it is a well known fact that they were still economically dependent and comparing their status then with the Philippines now, the islands are better prepared economically than was America in 1776. The conditions laid down in the Jones law of 1916 required only the establishment of a stable government. A permanent economic structure was not mentioned. Opponents of independence refuse to discuss the conditions of the Jones law knowing the Philippine govmnent has met the requirements therein, but aim to intimidate the Filipino people with arguments in which they picture the economic ruin of the islands. They picture poverty in its most dreadful stages, thus seeking to convince the ambitious and industrious Filipino that his only hope of financial success lay in his willingness to be guided by Uncle Sam. The present uncertain status of the Philippines, which has been sapping what otherwise would have been a robust, economic constitution must give way to a definite and permanent solution of our status, And the only hope for this solution is the granting of immediate and complete independence. When a child becomes of age it is sent by its parents into the world to face life for itself. If it clings to his mother's skirts after it has matured it becomes dependent and helpless, and so it is with the Philippines. We have clung to the skirts of our mother, the United States, long enough and now feel it is time for us to face the battle of life independently. We Filipinos wish to develop our own resources, and we realize that the Philippine economic structure needs reestablishment on a permanent basis. We do not object to a more slow economic growth. for we think it wiser to permit our resources to be developed by our ownpeople. They should meet their economic problems face to face and learn to cope with each new situation as it arises. The eyes of all ardent American friends of the priceless principle of " rovernment of a people by the consent of the people governed.' INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 335 are, at the present time, focused upon a people of the Orient, who have been patiently, persistently, and peacefully pecking their way through the shell of the egg which imprisons a nation in embryo. The "coming out " of this new and independent nation of some 13,000,000 people of the beautiful islands of the Philippines will be welcomed with special and sympathetic interest by the liberty-loving citizens of the United States, who have not forgotten the history of the humble beginning of their own Nation of 8,000,000 souls, when the eaglet —now grown to be the Great American Eagle-broke through its shell of tremendous opposition, and, as the United States of America, took its place in the sun, with the family of nations, needing and receiving the " mothering " care of the stronger friendly members of the family until its wing weathers grew so that it could fly alone. The American Eagle has spread her wide protecting wings over the nest in the " Pearl of the Orient " for more than a. quarter of a century; and now the time is at hand to expect the Philippines to emerge from its shell and take its place as a well-born addition to the family of the free and independent nations of the world. It was in vain that the Spanish, during their occupation of the Philippines, sought to destroy the national spirit of the Filipinos by many long years of tyranny, oppression, and murder. The torch of liberty, held aloft by the immortalized Joze Rizal, was not extinguished when he paid the forfeit of martyrdom for his great love for his country. It but burned the brighter until the shackles of Spain were removed. " Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends." When the American Eagle flew across the broad Pacific and hovered over the Philippine Islands the oppressors of the Filipinos fled in dismay, and for the first time in centuries the rightful owners of this rich empire were free to voice, unopposed, their aspirations and ambitions to become an independent nation-no longer vassal to any power on earth. Given this chance, the rapid progress they have made. toward their goal has been a marvel to the world, and a fulfillment of prophetic scripture, which declares that there will come a time when "A nation shall be born in a day." There is no doubt but that Providence has had a guiding hand in arranging the program now in progress for the Philippines, which program will not be complete until the Congress of the United States shall pass a bill (as pass it they will), and President Hoover shall sign (as sign he will), the bill declaring that the Philippine eaglet is prepared for an independent flight, with her wing feathers and tail feathers grown out so that she can fly alone. It may be that this eaglet will need " mothering*" for a time, as did the. American eaglet and the Cuban eaglet. If so, the. old mother bird, the grand old American eagle, will be flying underneath, with outspread wings to bear the fledgling up until it grows strong enough to soar away to fulfill its own national destiny unafraid. In closing, let me say that I am seeking for my people immediate, complete, and absolute indepedence. The CHAIRMAAN. If there is nothing further, we thank you very much. 336 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS On page 147 of the printed record of the hearings reference is made to the number of people employed in the coconut industry in the Philippines. lMr1. Howard Kellogg, who appeared before the colmmittee on February 3, was asked to furnish figures bearing on that question. The followingl telegram has now been received frolm Mr. Kellogg: BUFFALO,. N.Y.. F.C7)'r('jry 13, 1930. HlNIiY AM. BARRY. (Clrk C'om m ittee on1 Territories and1. Ilsular Aff airs. 1VS(i'.ington. 1). (.: Difficult to estimate total number emlployed in coconut industry in Philippines. General opinion is 1,700,000 to 2,000,000 working part or full time, mostly small planters, producers, dealers. Over half of that population located in cocollut-producilng Provinces are largely dependent on.! or work at producing copra. 1Ho()WAl-D KELLOGG. An excerpt from the minutes of the regular session held by the municipality of Manaoag, P. I., on the 26th day of December, 1929, is incorporated in the record as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 3:;1 The president read beforee te council the Resolution No. 2100. current series, of tlie Provincial Board of Pangasinan, supporting the Resolution No. 1407, current series, of the Provincial Board of Pampanga, which is requesting the Philippine Legislature, the provincial boards, and all municipal councils of the Philippine Islands to approve a resolution congratulating Senator King of the United States Senate for the deep interest he has taken in the Philippineindependence question and thanking him and all the Senators who voted for our independence as well as Senators Bingham. A. R. Robinson, W. E. Borah, Hiram Johnson. and all other Senators of the United States Senate for the kind attention they have given to our national cause. On motion of C(ouneilor Mr. Teodorico Patungan, seconded by Councilor Mr. Ireneo Bautista, it was Resolved, To adhere to the Resolution No. 1407 of the Provincial Board of Pampanga, and to the Resolution No. 2100 of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan, supporting same; Resolved furtther, To send felicities to Senator King of the United States Senate for the profound interest he has taken in the Philippine-independence question and furthermore thanking him and all the Senators who voted for the Philippine independence as well as Senators Bingham, A. R. Robinson, W. E. Borah, Hiram Johnson, and all other Senators of the United States Senate for the earnest consideration they have given for our national cause. Resolved lastly, To send copies of this resolution to Senators King, Bingham, A. R. Robinson, W. E. Borah, and Hiram Johnson of the United States Senate; and also to the secretaries of the Philippine senate and Philippine house of representatives. Carried unanimously. I hereby certify to the correctness of the above-quoted resolution. MACARIO CORPUS. Acting Municipal Secretary. JANUARY 10, 1930. Also has been received, by reference in the Senate to the committee, the following telegram from Filipino residents of Stockton. Calif.: RESOLUTION S STOCKTON, CALIF., February 11, 1930. UNITED STATES CONGRESS, VWashington, D. C. Whereas the Philippines is a territorial possession of the United States an( is subject to its laws and Government; and INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 337 Whereas the Filipino people are not citizens of the United States nor are they citizens of any free and sovereign state; and Whereas the Filipino people have fully demonstrated time and again their ability to govern themselves in compliance to the stable government; and Whereas the quest for freedom is not based on grievances nor ingratitude, but rather the recognition of America's altruistic and humanitarian achievenents, resulting therefrom a consequent establishment of a new bond of a still better relationship between America and the Philippines; and Whereas persistent intervention of America in the government of the Philippines and further continuance of her sovereignty are not in keeping with her ideals and principles; and Whereas the Filipino people also desire earnestly to develop their own individuality and identity and to mold their destiny based on their tradition, temperament, and condition: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, By this mass meeting, this 8th day of February, of 2,000 Filipino workers and residents of Stockton. as well as the vicinities of San Joaquin Valley, to respectfully petition and urge the Congress and the President of the United States, through their Filipino Commissioners, to take all the necessary and appropriate steps to grant the Filipino people their freedom and indepedence, immediate and complete, as a sovereign state; and be it further Resolved, That the resolution committee be instructed to forward copies of these resolutions to the Congress and President of the United States, Philippine Congress, and Filipino Commissioners. STOCKTON RESOLUTTION COMMITTEE. D. L. MARCUELAO. PRIMO VILLARUZ. T. SUAREZ. P. UMANOS. J. BILLONES. An additional statement has been received from Hon. Isauro Gabaldon, former Resident Commissioner from the Philippines to the United States, and now special delegate in Washington of the Philippine Independence League, which will be placed in the record at this point, as follows: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In this additional statement for the records of your hearings, which I submit by direction of the Philippine Independence League, I desire to go on record as being unequivocally opposed to Senate Joint Resolution 113. known as the Bingham resolution, or to any other legislation in conflict with the granting by the present Congress of immediate and absolute Philippine independence. Even if the King bill is rejected by the Senate, which I do not apprehend, I would still be opposed to the Bingham resolution, because if ii should be adopted and its purpose fully carried out, the prospects of my country ever receiving its independence would in my judgment become more remote than ever. I disagree absolutely with the very first sentence of the resolution, which states: "Whereas the question of the future status of the Philippine Islands has never been explicitly determined by the Congress of the United States." I contend that Congress went on record " explicitly " on that subject in the Jones law, and respectfully submit this claim to Congress for its verdict. A careful reading of the Bingham resolution indicates the intention to hold hearings, subpena witneses, etc. In other words, it proposes still another " investigation " of the Filipino people. I submit most respectfully that they do not require further investigation. The resolution reflects a lack of confidence in the inquiry the Senate committee itself has just conducted, during which the opponents of independence, as well as its advocates, had every opportunity to present all the data and all the arguments available on the subject. The Filipino people and the Philippines were thoroughly "investigated" by the Wood-Forbes mission and then more recently by the Hon. Carmi Thompson (in 1926), to say nothing of various other inquiries by visiting members of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States. No important facts have been overlooked. All pertinent information is already in the records of Congress and the Government of the United States. 92109-30-PT 3 -7 338 INDEPIENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS My position is that all reasonable facts having already been collected, the time has now come for action. My hope is that the present Congress will consider the information in hand, and on that record pass its definite judgment on the subject of Philippine independence. To answer our plea for immediate and absolute independence by proposing another "investigation" is merely to dodge the issue. That issue, as I see it, is whether the United States is willing to keep its word to grant us our independence upon the terms specified in the Jones law. to wit: "As soon as a st;ible government can )be established therein." Such a stable government not only " can be established," but has been established in the Philippines these many years. No one denies this fact. That even as early as 1919 the Filipinos had established or at least possessed the stable governlment that was to be the prerequisite to the granting of our independence, was officially reported to the President and to the Congress of the United States by an American Governor General who had been the official representative of the United States in the islands for seven years. Ot April 17, 1919, Governor Harrison made the following report: Ini my opinion. during tliese two and a half yelirs (since the pass;ge of the Jones Act), the Filipinos. having been given al,opportunity. have satisfactorily demonstrated the fact that they have already established and are maintaining the stable form of governmIent which is prescribed in the preamble of the Jones bill as a prerequisite to their independence." On Decemler 8. 1920, President Wilson, in a message delivered personally to a joint session of the Congress, substantiated the findings of Governor General Harrison and also upheld the claims of the Philippine Legislature to the effect that a stable government was a reality, in the following words: 'Allow me to call your attention to the fact that the people of the Philippine Islands have succeeded in maintaining a stable government since the last action of the Congress in their behalf. and have thus fulfilled the condition set by the Congress as precedent to a consideration of granting independence to the islands. "I respectfully submit that this condition precedent having been fulfilled, it is now our liberty and our duty to keep our promise to the people of those islands by granting them the independence which they so honorably covet." The Filipino people having made out their case, I submit it is now the duty of (ongress, instead (}f providing for fllrther investigations or " conferen:es." to grant us our immediate and absolute independence. Also, the following letter adcldressed by Mr. (abaldon to the President is herewith printed: CLEVELAN)D, OHIO, JaInuary 25, 1930. H 1n. IIERBERT Ioo0VER. Presidect of thfe Unitecd SteIas. MY DEAR IR. PRESIDENT: I desire respectfully to appeal to you to do all within your power to guarantee Filipino citizens in the United States the same courteous treatment and the same protection that Filipinos accord American citizens in the Philippine Islands. One Filipino citizen hlas been mur(leredl indl othetrs lia;vc been beaten 8and flogged t-y mnobs on the tPacific colast withlim the iist 10 dalys. On numeirolus other occasions within the last year Filipino citizens in California and Washington State have been driven from their hom-es under threats of death, and have had to flee for their lives. While labor troubles are apparently at the bottom of these affairs. the excuse is made that the attacks were made because Filipinos mingled with American girls in dance halls. I must call your attention to the fact that it is a very (comnmoni sig(ht to see American men doancing with Filipino )alarinas i11 the calbrets of Manila, yet up tio this timle there have l)eetl no disturbances on th;at account. However, entirely aside from these inccidents to wllich I call your attention. it seems hopeless to expect that either the Americans on the Pacific coast or those in the Philippines will ever be ready to treat the Filipino people on a basis of social equality. This makes it absolutely certain the Filipino people can never be completely happy under American sovereignty. They are not conscious that their creator made theml inferior to other races. and never will so believe. All this is true in reference to the Filipino people as a whole, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 339 regardless of the present friendly cooperation between political leaders and American capitalists having investments in the Philippines. Therefore, as a Filipino who served eight years as a Resident Commissioner from the Philippines to the Congress of the United States, I desire earnestly to beseech you to recommend that Congress now grant us our long overdue complete independence. We may as well look the facts in the face. Conditions on the Pacific coast are more likely to get worse than better, and early Philippine independence seems the only practical solution of this and the recently emphasized economic problem that has arisen between the two countries. Just as the extension of human freedom has cured other similar vexing problems between nations in the past, it now offers itself as a just and practical solution of these newly emphasized ones that now confront the Philippines and the United States. It is currently reported that a majority of the membership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States favor early Philippine independence. The Senate has already assured itself of an opportunity to vote on the subject, but the House Committee on Insular Affairs has not as yet taken the subject up for consideration. If the latter committee will report an independence bill to the House so that a vote may be had I feel confident that a permanent and satisfactory solution of the Philippine question may be brought about at the present session of Congress. If you can see your way clear to aid the Filipinos your name will ever be revered along with that of Abraham Lincoln, who said, "No man is good enough to rule another man without the other's consent." Because it portrays the attitude of the Filipino toward the American in the Philippines. I wish to submit the following by the Rev. Samuel W. Stagg, an American, who spent many years in the Philippines as a Protestant missionary and who but recently returned to the United States: WHY I RESPECT THE FILIPINO "I respect the Filipino because he respects himself. There is an innate manliness about him. He has a deep-seated personal pride. No one could ever make a Filipino pull a rickshaw. While he is seldom overbearing, he insists on fair and respectful treatment. There is nothing that stirs the heart of the Filipino more quickly than disrespect. The present nationalistic movement of the country is an outgrowth of this Filipino trait. Because he respects himself he wishes to govern himself. "I respect the Filipino because he is innately a gentleman. In my travels throughout the archipelago I have yet to be treated disrespectfully by a Filipino. Everywhere I have been treated with unfailing courtesy and kindness. "I respect the Filipino because of his hospitality. One day while traveling in Cagayan Valley a tire on my car blew. To fix it was a hot, dirty job. I had hardly finished when an old lady beckoned to me from a near-by nipa hut. She had prepared a big bowl of cold water, soap, and a clean towel for me. While I washed she filled a glass of cool coconut milk for mie to drink. Why did she do this? I was a perfect stranger to her. I probably would never see her again. Her hospitality was as free as sunlight. I could multiply such instances by a hundred. I can never repay the Filipino for the hospitality he has extended to me. "I respect the Filipino because he is forward looking. The glory of most oriental thinking lies in the past. The eyes of the Filipino are fixed upon the future. He is always eager for newer and better ways of thinking anddoing his work. The Filipino will relinquish the old for the new quicker than any other oriental. "I respect the Filipino because he is instinctively and devoutly reverent. He has capacity for God. The Filipino student is the most reverent student in the world." Very respectfully submitted. ISAURO GAB.ALDON-. An editorial in the Washington Post of Sunday, February 2, will be incorporated in the record. It reads as follows: 340 INDEPESDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAXNDS TH!' PH ILIPPINtE QI-ESTIO)N Tle anti-Filipino riots that have occurrel recently in (Calif(loria have served to reopen the question of Filipino independence. Resident Commissioner Osias points to the flag behind the Speaker's chair in the House antd declares dramatically that so long as the Filipinos live under that banner they will not submit to being treated as aliens. Senator Tydings and( others in the Senate call attention to the fact that a racial problem exists and that in the event tie Filipinos are granted their independence tlhey w-ill have to submit to the immigration laws, which is to say, exclusion. The problem of Philippiine independence is most complex. Ultimately the Filipinos will be granlted the right to establish their o(wn government. Senator ('opeland's contention that tlhe Constitutioll sta;nds in thle way of reiinquishing tlhe islands does not bear analysis. The Presidents aind ('Cogress, from time to time. have declared it to be the purpose,f the Government ultimately to relinquish its control over the islands, and ill 916 t an (act was passed declaring it to be the purpose of the United States to withdraw from tle islands as soon as a stable government can be established therein. The only question that must be answered before the Filipinos are granted their independence is whether or not they are capable of establishing a stable government. The tariff and the racial question lave no bearing (on tlhe question of Philippine independence except in so far as withdrawal of tle United States from tlie islands would, of necessity, compel the erection of a tariff wall a:gainst P'lilippine products and the imposition of the exclusion policy upon Filipinos. Those who took up tile cause of independence for tile purpose of securing a tariff on sugar were no more justified than those who now suggest independence as a panacea for tile race problem that seems to be arising. Tlle sole question that needs to be answered is: Are Filipinos capable of establishing and perpetuating a stable government? Opinions will not suffice for an answer. The United States must know exactly wlhat it does before it can consider seriously withdrawal from the Pllilippines. Three bills having to do with this question are before the Senate. The first, introduced by Senator King, provides for immediate independence. Since the Filipinos are not yet able to establish a stable government the King bill should not be enacted. The second, introduced by Mr. Bingham, calls for a mixed commission of Americans and Filipinos to sit next fall to review the entire problem and seek to work out a solution. The Bingham bill has merit. The third, introduced by Senator Vandenberg, proposes quasi ilndependence for a decade, during which the Filipinos would be on probation under a limited autonomous government, and a tariff wall would be gradually erected. Final disposition of the question would hinge on a plebiscite to be held in the islands. The bill also provides in a limited way for a congressional veto if the probati(nary experiment should prove unsatisfactory. The Vandenberg bill proposes a practical method for preparing tlie Filipinos for independence. It substitutes for precipitate action a measured course of gradual readjustment. If the Filipinos have reached a position in their national development that will permit a gradual increase of autonomy a bill along tlie lines proposed in the Vandenberg measure might be advisable. Ten years, however, seems to be too brief a probationary period, nor would "limited" opportunity for congressional veto in the event the experinent proves unsuccessful be enough of a safeguard. A commission, such as is proposed in the Bingham measure, might well be created to ascertain whether or not a plan along the lines suggested in the Vandenberg measure should be put into effect in the near future. This concludes the hearing to-day. The next hearing will be next Monday at 10 o'clock in this room. (Whereupon, at 4 o'clock p. i., the hearings were adjourned until MIonday, February 17. 1930, at 10 o'clock a. m.) x Independence for the Philippine Islands HEARINGS BEFORE THE' ga- i COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 204 A BILL PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS S. 3-108 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND TO FORM A FREE AND INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES S. J. Res. 113 JOINT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO CALL A CONFERENCE ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION S. Res. 199 RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF TARIFF AUTONOMY FOR THE: PHILIPPINES IN CONNECTION WITH HEARINGS RELATIVE TO THEIR INDEPENDENCE S. 3379 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND FORM A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PHILIPPNE ISLANDS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE SAME Part 4 FEBRUARY 17, 1930 Printed for the use of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92109 WASHINGTON: 1930 D c;; * t - A COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION HIRAM BINGHAM, Connecticut, Chairman HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada. ARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYE, North Dakota. EDWIN S. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. JESSE H. METCALF, Rhode Island. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland. GUY D. GOFF, West Virginia. HARRY B. HAWES, Missouri. BRONSON M. CUTTING, New Mexico. HENRY M. BARRY, Clerk. II CONTENTS Statement of- Page Nicholas Roosevelt, a correspondent of the New York Times, New York City ------— ___________________- 341 John M. Switzer, 48 West Fifty-ninth Street, New York City ---_____ _ 377 III ' INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment of February 10, 1930, in the committee room of the Committee on Interstate Commerce, the Capitol, at 10 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Metcalf, Robinson of Indiana, Vandenberg, Cutting, Nye, Broussard, and Hawes. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The first witness this morning is Mr. Nicholas Roosevelt, of the New York Times. STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS ROOSEVELT, A CORRESPONDENT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Give the reporter your name and address for the record, please. Mr. ROOSEVELT. My name is Nicholas Roosevelt, New York Times, New York, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Have you recently made a trip to the Far East? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, sir. I was out in the Far East, the last time, in 1925 and 1926. I returned from there in May, 1926, and both before and since that time I have been following the Philippine question and all problems relating to the Far East very closely. The CHAIRMAN. When were you there before then? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I had never been out there before. not before 1925. [ spent the winter out there in 1925-26. The CHAIRMAN. How many months were you in the Philippines? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I was in the Philippines six weeks. Would it be in order for me to make a short statement? The CHAIRMAN. We shall be very glad to have you make a statenent. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have not had opportunity to follow very closely n the last two weeks what has been said before this committee, havng been out of the country; but at the risk of repeating what may iave been said by other people, I should like to say a few words about vhat it seems to me are some of the practical difficulties that have,ot to be considered in connection with the problem of Philippine ndependence. I am going to leave out for the time being all of the moral aspects,f the problem of our responsibilities and our duties toward the Filipino people, and I would like to briefly sum up what it seems o me are some practical points of great importance. 341 342 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS In the first place, I am going to pass over, also, the question as t whether or not the Filipinos will be able to maintain a stable gov ernment. I do want to start out with the financial problem that the, will meet when they have to begin the organization and carrying o0 of an independent Philippine government. As you know, the Filipinos are already taxed about as high as the; can afford to pay, and with those revenues they manage just abou to carry out all of the cost of internal government, but of course there is no provision in that either for the defense of the islands o: for their diplomatic representation abroad. I believe it was recently estimated that the cost of the defenses o: the islands that this country has paid is about $15,000,000 a year That takes no account of the amount of money that has been sunt in Corregidor, and the other permanent defenses there. That is simply the operating cost, which gives an idea of what the Filipinos would have to spend even if they simply continued a defense estab lishment. Senator VANDENBERG. Are you referring to external defenses? Mr. ROOSEVELT. External defenses, yes; I am not referring tc policing or to the Insular constabulary or any of the internal policing, but simply to the question of external defense. Senator VANDEKBERG. I do not want to interrupt your line of thought, but may I inquire if you think it might be possible to have perhaps a neutralization in some fashion which would avoid the necessity for that character of continuing expenditure. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would it be in order for me to touch on that later on? I have a number of points in connection with that which I would like to develop. Senator VANDENBERG. Very well. The CHAIRMAN. Just at this point: what does this figure of $15,000,000 that you have mentioned include? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I could not give you the details, Senator. I saw it in Mr. Coolidge's message vetoing the plebiscite bill in 1927, and, as far as I know, that is the actual share of the War Department budget for the maintenance of such American troops as we have in the Philippines at the present time. I believe the actual figure was $14,800,000, or something like that. The CHAIRMAN. That would include the pay allowances, maintenance, and so forth, of the Philippine Scouts, part of the Regular Army? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I assume that would include the Philippine Scouts who are part of the American Army, as I understand, but not the Constabulary which does all the internal policing, of course. I simply mention this as one of the items that would have to b( added to an independence Philippine budget. There is also an intangible sum-I would not like to make an esti mate on it-for the cost of diplomatic representation abroad whict at present is paid, naturally, or is done by our own diplomatic repre sentatives, so that it relieves them of that burden. This cost woul( depend on the extravagance with which they would wish to estab lish consular and diplomatic offices in various parts of the world. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether they maintain any repre sentatives in this country or abroad except those sent to Congres and who are paid out of the Congressional funds? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 343 Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not know of any that are officially sent to officially represent the Philippine government, except that I believe there is a commercial agent in New York, and there may be one or two elsewhere. I do not know of any others. It is a point that I have never had occasion to check up in detail. The CHAIRMAN. Will you permit me to ask the Philippine Commissioner whether their commercial representatives in this country are paid by the Philippine government? Commissioner GuTEVARA. Yes; the commercial agents we have in the United States are paid by the Philippine government. The CHAIRMAN. How many have you here Commissioner GUEVARA. One in New York; only one, now. We have a Philippine trade commissioner in Washington. The CHAIRMAN. General McIntyre? Commissioner GUJEVARA. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. They are paid out of the Philippine budget? Commissioner GUJEVARA. By the Philippine government. Senator VANDENBERG. Have you any in any other countries? Commissioner GUEVARA. No. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you have any agent in the Hawaiian Islands? Commissioner GUEVARA. We have a labor commissioner there. Senator VANDENBERG. Have you any in California? Commissioner GJEVARA. No. We used to have, but not now. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The question of diplomatic representation involves a figure that I would hesitate to make an estimate on. It might be a million dollars or more or less. Another item to be added to the budget would be, of course, the loss on the internal-revenue tax on Philippine tobaccos which at present is turned back to the Philippine government by the United States Treasury. That, I believe, is now in the neighborhood of $800,000 a year. That is a comparatively small item, but these things together add up to a considerable sum. Another cost in the budget, it may be, would be the cost of the loans, both outstanding and to come, of the Philippine government. I believe that the present outstanding bonds were issued at in the neighborhood of 4 or 41/2 or 5 per cent, and they were issued at as low prices as that because of the fact that they have the guaranty of the United States Government-or, at least, were underwritten by the United States Government. Senator VANDENBERG. What do you mean by that? That we guarantee their payment? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not know what the formal arrangement is, but we stand back of them. In other words, as a purchaser of the Philippine bonds you have the additional security that the United States Government is back of them. Senator VANDENBERG. That is a moral responsibility, not a legal one? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I believe it is more than that; I do not know. I believe it is a legal obligation, too. I have not the information on that at hand. Senator VANDENBERG. Perhaps the commissioner can give us the facts in regard to that matter. 344 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE [SIANDS Commissioner GUEVARA. The United States Government is only morally responsible. Mr. ROOSEVELT. This moral responsibility has of course enabled the Philippine government to borrow more cheaply than most Senator VANDENBERG. What amount has it borrowed? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not know exactly. I think it is in the neighborhood of $146,000,000. Mr. RoxAs. The outstanding indebtedness is about $73,000,000. This year about $6,000,000 will be redeemed. There is already legislative authority for that. There is a sinking fund to-day amounting to about $31,000,000. Senator VANDENBERG. Is there a new loan being floated now? Mr. RoxAs. No, sir. Well, there is a new bond issue being sold for which authority was granted two years ago for the construction of the waterworks system in Manila. Senator VANDENBERG. What is the size of that bond issue? Mr. RoxAs. P12,000,000-$6,000,000. Senator VANDENBERG. Thank you. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The point I wanted to bring out in that connection was to remind you that in this same veto message of ex-President Coolidge it was estimated-and I believe that the estimates were made for him by the Bureau of Insular Affairs-that it would cost the Philippine government about $2,000,000 a year more in interest if they borrowed this money in the open market without the support, morally or otherwise, of the United States Government; and my understanding is-perhaps " understanding " is too strong a wordI take it for granted that in the event of Philippine independence the United States would no longer morally underwrite or in any other way underwrite the bonds of an independent Philippine nation, which means, again, that there would be an extra burden on the Treasury in order to pay for this difference between what they can borrow money for at the present time and what they can borrow it for in the event of a refunding issue to cover the outstanding loans. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask your views with regard to what obligation you conceive the United States Government to be under toward the purchasers of these bonds who bought them believing that the United States had a moral obligation to see that they were paid. Supposing, for instance, that Senator King's bill were to pass and the Philippines were to secure their independence within a couple of years or so, are we under any obligation by legislation to protect the purchasers of the $7,000,000 worth of bonds, more or less? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not know as to what sort of an obligation there would be there. My thought would be that in an event like that one of the first things that would be done would be that those outstanding bonds would be completely withdrawn and that a new refunding issue, issued independently by the Philippine government, would be arranged, and that in the meantime they would naturally pay off the present outstanding indebtedness. Of course, there certainly is a moral obligation at present by the United States Government to continue those. There would have to be negotiations on that point. Senator HAWES. Before you get off that subject, Mr. Roosevelt, in any legislation passed by the Congress relating to independence or INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 345 contingent independence the Congress could provide for the disposition of those bonds by congressional action? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator HAWES. So that it is not a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of what Congress would do when the subject was presented to the Congress? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. I am not familiar with this aspect of the problem at all; that is, the congressional aspect of it. The only other point in connection with this matter of financesI have run over briefly three or four additional items that would have to be put into the Philippine budget-is the likelihood, so far as we can see, of a very grave and prolonged business depression in the islands. I say that because I assume also that in the event of independence there would be no continuation of free trade. I see no reason why there should be. We simply would have no obligation there, moral or otherwise, to continue to grant preference to Philippine products so long as they ceased to be under the American flag. I think everybody is agreed that that would be a very serious blow to the Philippine business interests, both of the islands and of foreigners, which have grown up under the protection of this free-trade arrangement with the United States. It means that they would no longer have that protection. They would have to compete in the open markets of the world, and they would be driven back again into competing with the cheap labor of the other parts of the East-Java, China, Japan, and elsewhere. It seems to me it would add very seriously to the financial difficulties of the Philippine Government in raising enough money to meet these extra costs at the same time that their business would be rather seriously curtailed, at least for a number of years. Senator VANDENBERG. Suppose this tariff problem were made a gradual and a progressive one, so that they would serially step into complete independence-would that make a difference, in your point of view? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am inclined to think that that would make the economic blow to the Philippines very much less. In other words, it would be easier gradually to make new adjustments; but that I do not know. That would be my opinion. Senator VANDENBERG. Would not the immediate income from increased tariffs tend to provide a revenue to offset the debits that you have previously described as being burdensome? Mr. ROOSEVELT. It would tend to a certain extent to offset them. There, again, I have to give figures from memory, because I did not bring them along with me. But an estimate was made in 1927, to which the President referred in his message and, if I remember rightly, at the present time duties amounting to about $15,000,000 or maybe $17,000,000 a year are waived on American products going into the Philippines, and the duties amounting to about $42,000,000 are waived on Philippine products coming into the United States. I have heard since then a higher figure on the latter; that the volume of duty waived on Philippine imports into the United States has been put as high as $54,000,000. I do not know the source of that figure and I can not vouch for it, but even at that it leaves in a sense a net deficit. 346 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS It is true that those additional millions would help, but in the meantime it is very questionable as to whether the Filipinos would be able to continue their imports on anywhere near as a large a scale, owing to the internal difficulties, the financial, or business depression. Their imports at the present time consist of a great many articles which probably in the long run they could get along without; they got along without them before we came there, and it is likely that there would be a very sharp drop in American goods sent to the Philippines. Senator HAWES. Mr. Vandenberg's bill provides for a series of periods of adjustment. Are you familiar with his bill? Mr. ROOSEVELT. In a general way; yes. I have not seen the text of it, having been away. Senator HAWES. There is a time for a general adjustment, and then Congress provides import duties of 25, 50, and 75 per cent before it reaches the 100, or the maximum-an ascending scale for adjustment. Then, in addition to that, Mr. Roosevelt, there seems to be an assumption that we would immediately put up tariff barriers. That seems to be assumed by the American-Filipino Chamber of Commerce of New York, for instance. But that does not follow. The CHAIRMAN. It is also assumed by the farm organizations that really started the agitation. Mr. ROOSEVELT. From what I have read of the debates in the Senate and the testimony before this committee and elsewhere, I had assumed that the whole move was in order to protect American sugar. That is what I had understood. Senator HAWES. No. Let us get back to that point. I am reading your delightful book, by the way, and it is a fine contribution. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you. Senator HAWES. There has been the assumption that the tariff barrier would automatically follow independence of any kind. That is an assumption. But that is not a fact. It simply puts the matter into the hands of Congress to determine whether it will or will not do that. It is an open question for Congress to decide in view of the situation presented at the time the matter arises. So that assumption is a wrong assumption unless the wisdom of Congress is inmmediately questioned on the subject. I thought I would direct your attention to that, because the suggestion proposed by Mr. Vanderberg is an entirely new one, so far as I know, in considering these matters. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should think that a natural and progressive adjustment would make the separation very much less painful for the Filipinos. Senator VANDENBERG. And might make it successful. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not say that, sir. Senator VANDENBERG. I am adding that. Mr. ROOSEVELT. All right. The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the fact that the representatives of American organizations who have appeared before this committee in favor of granting immediate independence have taken it for granted that if the Philippines secured independence a tariff wall would be erected against Philippine products, and that was their chief interest? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 347 Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; that was my recollection and my understanding of the matter. I have nothing more on the financial branch of it. Is it in order for me to move on to some of the international aspects? The CHAIRMAN. Surely. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The international aspects of the problem have concerned my particular interest, for it has been my business in the last 10 years or more to follow very closely international relations, especially America's foreign policy, and in particular America's foreign policy in the Pacific. I think, in order to make my point clear, I can take it up under three heads very briefly. In the first place, from the point of view of the balance of powerI know that that phrase was outlawed by some of our devotees of a new American foreign policy a number of years ago, but the fact I know is still in existence, at least in the Far East. By that I mean in particular that there has grown up there a relationship which is predicated on the presence —you might say-rthe peaceful presence, backed by force, of Great Britain, the United States, Holland, and Japan-incidentally, France; but I think she does not carry as much weight out there as these other nations. It is to the particular interest of Great Britain, the United States, and Holland to see that there is no change in the political equilibrium of the Far East, because what they want is two things: They want peace from the point of view of international affairs, and they want internal tranquillity in their own possessions and in those territories which they govern out there. The United States was thrown into this situation, you might say, largely by the forces of geography-the mere fact that the Philippines are part of a chain of islands that stretch from Japan down through the Dutch East Indies to Australia, and the fact that the United States is responsible) for that particular part has put us in the position of guardianship and has placed upon us the responsibility of maintaining order there. Think of it for a moment in terms of Cuba and the West Indies. If there were to be any serious change of sovereignty in Cuba what would be the result? Or take a specific instance. When the Danish West Indies were transferred from Danish to American sovereignty, all through that area, simply owing to the geographical feature of the location of those islands, it had its repercussions in the entire political relationships. Latin-American countries, especially those of northern Latin America, were worried because they saw the United States, as they thought, stepping out and adding new territory. In the same way in Cuba, when we intervened, all through Latin America there was great excitement and uneasiness. When we withdrew there likewise was an immediate change. It is the same way with the Philippines. When we went into the Philippines we became responsible for them. We introduced an entirely new factor in the political situation in the Far East; and if we withdraw now, we change the entire relationship that exists there. As if that were not bad enough, there is every reason to believe that our withdrawal in itself would have repercussions in the internal affairs of some of the other foreign possessions out there. 348 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS When I was in the Dutch East Indies in 1925 I discussed this point at considerable length with various people, and I have since talked it over with people familiar with conditions in India and the Malay States, and Korea, and elsewhere, and it seems to be the general impression that the granting of independence to the Philippines-I might say, even talking of granting independence to the Philippines-has its repercussions all through these other territories. You might say that that is a thing which does not concern us. It does not, except indirectly; but when they say out there-and they ought to know, although they might not know-when they tell you, as they told me, that they felt great uneasiness lest in the Dutch East Indies there should be a new series of outbreaks and uprisings against the Dutch; when they say, as I have been told, that in India even such discussion as there has been here this last summer has had influence on the Nationalist movement in India-which may be a good thing or a bad thing; I am not questioning that now-it gives you an idea of the ramifications of this thing; and if it results, as might very well be, in much disorder throughout the Far East, which would not come immediately, but in the course of months, I think, we would be taking on a new and rather perilous responsibility in disturbing the world's peace just at a time when we seem to be very busy trying to make peace permanent elsewhere. Senator HAWES. Before you pass away from that thought, Mr. Roosevelt, do I understand that you urge that as an objection to Philippine independence; that if we gave them their independence the Dutch and other possessions there would be affected by it, and that for that reason we should not grant the Filipinos their independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is not quite the point. I am glad you bring it out that way, for that makes it easier for me to make my point a little clearer. As I said, we are not concerned with the effects on Holland as such; that has nothing to do with us; but if the results in the Dutch East Indies are such as to produce very serious uneasiness; and if it spreads from there throughout the Far East, which at the present time is in a very chaotic condition; and if there is another Nationalist movement-it is called Nationalist-it is largely anti-foreign-one can very easily sympathize with it-but I want to keep off the rights and wrongs of it. What I want to do is simply to point out the danger of a slowly starting and widespread political disturbance throughout the East which might very well cause some kind of serious political outbreak, and possibly even war, throughout the Far East. That is what I mean. Does that make it clearer? Senator HAWES. No. I can understand how that might possibly happen; but what business would that be of ours? Mr. ROOSEVELT. It seems to me that the only business it is of ourd is that we owe it to ourselves not to do things which are likely to ) unloose the possibilities of war in the world, especially when we are very busy trying to end war. Senator HAwEs. If we were out of there our responsibility would be over. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; our responsibility would be over; but unlea I wrongly judge this country, I am quite sure that our disciples of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 349 evangelistic diplomacy, our sentimentalists, who are all the time wanting us to step out and save the world, would be among those who would be talking loudly of our responsibility of going in to save the Philippines and to restore order. Senator HAWES. I disagree with your conclusion, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. To finish up this international point; it would very probably have quite a serious effect on our own position and our own prestige throughout the Far East. Perhaps I can best explain that by reminding you of the " open door " in China and what happened with respect to our policy in China at the time we went into the Philippines. If you remember, in 1898 and 1899 conditions were getting worse and there were threats that China was going to be dismembered. Mr. Hay, then Secretary of State, in a series of notes formulated what has since been spoken of usually as the open-door doctrine It had been advocate before, but that was the first definite formulation of it. The foreign nations did not pay very much attention to our wishes to see the open-door policy carried out, and they were more or less inclined to consider us as somewhat impertinent for wanting to mix into things there. We then went into the Philippines in 1900, and almost immediately afterwards there came the so-called Boxer uprising, and the United States, having troops present in the Philippines, was able to send an important contingent to China to take part in the suppression of the Boxer uprising. Having taken an important part in the suppression of that uprising, it got the chance to take an active part in the peace settlement. Being able to do that and having taken our part actively in the matter, the foreign powers from that time on were very much more ready to heed our wishes and, if not be guided by our policies, at least no longer to continue to ignore them. Since that time our influence has gradually increased; it has Drown steadily through the Far East; and if we withdraw from there, from the point of view of anybody who is out in the east it 4ives the appearance that we are unable or unwilling or afraid to tarry out the responsibilities that we have undertaken there. I think it would be followed by very serious loss of face, loss of:restige, and that in turn would mean a loss of influence comnercially, politically, and in all our activities, certainly in China, nd up and down that far eastern coast. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that that loss of prestige would be ikely to lead to an attack on American persons and property in the?ar East, in the interior of China, for instance, that might in turn nvolve us so that we should have to go in and protect our citizens? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would say that would be very likely, judging,y what I have heard very recently from people who have returned rom China; namely, that there is more and more of a tendency to hat, as it is; and such is the curious psychology of the Chinese in,articular that when they think that you are afraid of them they espect you very much less, and they will do anything they want to, n individual so long as they think you are unwilling or afraid to Land up against them. I think it would be very likely to be fol)wed by more trouble there. 350 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator VANDENBERG. May I now recur to the question I asked you a few moments ago? Would not the exclusive neutralization of the islands offset or prevent many of these hazards to which you now advert? Mr. ROOSEVELT. May I ask for a further definition of the term "exclusive neutralization " Senator VANDENBERG. I mean an agreement between the Pacific powers under which the neutrality of the Philippines would be recognized and pledged. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would we be a participant in that agreement? Senator VANDENBERG. Oh, yes; though not to the extent of underwriting their independence. I am not speaking of that phase of it. I am speaking of a general agreement to respect their neutrality. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think everything would depend on the wording of the treaty and on the actual responsibilities undertaken. The CHAIRMAN. If our nearest naval base, in the event of our going out of the Philippines, were in Hawaii, some three weeks away by ocean, the duty of protecting the Philippines and of maintaining the neutrality would devolve more on other nations, would it not. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should think so; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The point that you are making, as I understand it-and you will correct me if I have misunderstood-is that for us to get out of the Philippines would be regarded in the Far Eas as pursuing a policy of " scuttle "? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Precisely. The CHAIRMAN. It was what President McKinley, in the earl days, told them we certainly would not do? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And that would be interpreted in the Far Eas as a sort of national weakness Mr. ROOSEVELT. Precisely. The CHAIRMAN. DO you think they could understand any othe reason for it except that we were afraid that the Philippines wer so far away that we could not take care of them? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not see any other construction that they coul put upon it, knowing what I do of how they look at things out there The CHAIRMAN. And therefore it is your view that for us to pur sue the policy of "scuttle," as it would seem to be, would ten really, in the long run, to embroil us still further in the Far Eas unless we were willing to take care of the interests of our national iand citizens? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would put it even stronger than that. It woul put us in a much more unfortunate position than we are in at th present time. We are responsible as it is, and we have some at thoritv. We can do something to guide the general policies wit respect to the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. Would there ever come a time when could leave and give them their independence without this inte pretation to which you refer? Mr. ROOSEVELT. t think it is quite conceivable, but I do not thi it is conceivable certainly inside of the next decade or so. And again, I am not speaking of internal conditions in the island I am speaking of international conditions which are so chaotic SP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 351 through the Far East. Everybody is sitting on a keg of gunpowder out there, and this might very well be the thing that would set it off, for all we know. We can not say definitely, of course, that conditions in 15, 20, or 30 years from now might not be so entirely different with respect to the political and other line-ups in the East itat this would no longer be as grave a factor.. Senator VANDENBERG. DO you mean then that we should cease even a discussion of Philippine independence until the Far East is stabilized? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, sir; I would not put it that way. I would put it in other words, and I would say that a discussion of Philippine independence, such as has been going on in this country during the last few months, is a contributing factor to unrest throughout the East. I do not say that you should not discuss it. Senator VANDENBERG. I have great respect for your opinion, and this is not controversial; but if we must avoid the problem of Philippine independence lest it have a relationship to the balance of the Far East, how can we ever take it up until the Far East is wholly stabilized-and when in Heaven's name will that be? Mr. ROOSEVELT. To the first part of the question I should say that in spite of the uneasiness which it causes throughout the Far East that neither can nor should prevent our taking it up and discussing it. Of course, it has been discussed a lot in the past. I do not see that it would necessarily preclude discussion. But the granting of independence is another thing; and if independence were to be granted to-morrow, I think it would have a very serious effect. Senator VANDENBERG. Do you think that a probationary Commonwealth for one or two decades would have a sufficiently hazardous effect so that it ought to be avoided? Mr. ROOSEVELT. NO, sir; but, of course, when we touch on that why make any change? We have had what is in effect a working Commonwealth. They have virtual autonomy at the present time; so that I do not see that we would be gaining anything. Senator VANDENBERG. We have nothing at the present time which gives us any chance to demonstrate whether the Philippines can live and survive economically without our free markets, have we? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No; we have not that. Senator VANDENBERG. IS not that desirable in order to have a conclusive decision as to their economic self-sufficiency? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Then you mean by the term that you usewould you repeat it, please? Senator VANDENBERG. I am referring to a probationary Commonwealth such as is suggested in the bill that I have submitted. Mr. ROOSEVELT. In this probationary commonwealth would you apply this same provision? Senator VANDENBERG. Tariff autonomy; yes. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That, of course, introduces a period of adjustment Senator VANDENBERG. That is right. Now what I want to know is whether. that would have the same elements of external influence that you fear. Mr. ROOSEVELT. To a certain extent; certainly nowhere'near as much as independence. And, again, that would depend primarily 352 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS on the internal conditions in these other countries. They have a curious sort of system of underground telegraph, you might call it, all through the East; and one of the troubles comes from the fact that the other peoples out there have the feeling that they are vastly superior to the Filipinos, and when they see the Filipinos getting more and more favors and more and more complete autonomy, and, you might say, being nursed along, it naturally makes them say to themselves, "We are much better than the Filipinos. Why should we not have a great deal more than we have? " And, again, that may not concern us, but it is a factor. I am simply trying to point out that this thing is not simply a question between the United States and the Philippines, but is a serious international problem. Senator VANDENBERG. Would you think that these external relationships that you have described are sufficiently important to estop independence at the present time? 'Would you think that the effect of a probationary commonwealth would be sufficiently important to estop the consideration of that proposition at this time? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should not think so; no. sir. I have not seen the bill, so in a sense I am talking blindly, but my first reaction to that would be simply to go back, if I may for a minute, to what should have been at the beginning of my talk. namely, that last summer conditions in the islands had finally quieted down to such an extent that this agitation for complete, immediate, and absolute independence, while it was still a very live aspiration and ambition. and a very laudable and proper one, had been in a sense put into the background, and they turned definitely toward this business of preparing for economic development, you might say. the economic background of the islands, with a view to being more able ultimately to govern themselves independently without any support from the United States. In other words, doing what you were referring to. As far as I can see-and I have talked with people who have been out there and who are in position to be pretty well informed-until the introduction of the Timberlake resolution there was a greater period of placidity, of good feeling, with respect to the political issues than there had been for years. And there was every indication to believe that the Philippines were going to begin to take up this thing that had been heretofore completely neglected, namely, the economic development of the islands. Then came this agitation in this country by the sugar interests and others and this whole thing has flamed up again in the Philippines. Senator VANDENBERG. You are in favor, I apprehend, of this economic development and of their making ready? Mr. ROOSEVELT. It seems to me that it is essential; it is fundamental, you might say. Senator VANDENBERG. HOW is it of the slightest utility to the Philippines to permit them to proceed with our free markets when the culmination of their dreams takes away the free markets? Is it not unfair to them to invite them to proceed with their economic development on a false basis? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not altogether sure that I see there is a false basis. Perhaps I do not quite understand. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 353 Senator VANDENBERG. I mean, in spite of Senator Hawes's objection to this hypothesis, when they are independent they lose our free markets? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. How can they develop economically at home, looking toward self sufficiency adequate for independence, unless they do it in the face of a protected market instead of our free market? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should say that there again the time element comes in. We can not tell 20 or 30 years from now what our attitude with respect to tariffs is going to be. I know it is presumed to be a permanent institution with us; but I do not want for a moment to take up the question of tariff. It seems to me it is quite possible that as we develop more and more as an export Nation, which we are doing rapidly, there is going to be somewhat of a change with respect to our entire tariff policy. There might not be; I do not know. What I mean is that you can not tell very well 20 or 30 years from now as to how the tariff of 1950 or 1960, or whatever it might be, will affect Philippine industries. Abstractly I agree with you in theory, certainly, that there is a certain incongruity in suggesting that we will develop them under tariff protection when the ultimate objective is outside. On the other hand, that is assuming the ultimate objective always will be outside. That is assuming, again, that 30 years from now the Philippines will think as they think to-day. If some form of arrangement-some speak of it as autonomy; some use other terms-could be worked out, not for the immediate present, but for the ultimate, you are still getting into many intangibles there, but it is quite possible that they would urge us 30 years from now to continue the relationship. I do not know. You are getting into very difficult, almost metaphysical questions there. Senator VANDENBERG. I think you are getting into metaphysics when you contemplate the element of free trade being necessary. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I did not say that. I do not want to commit myself on the tariff. Senator HAWES. Returning to a question asked you by Mr. Vandenberg a while ago, suppose England, France, Germany, Japan, and other nations recognized this Territory as a neutral Territory and guaranteed its independence. Would that involve what the chairman refers to as " scuttling " on the part of the United States? I do not know what he means, exactly; but if the nations of the world should agree to recognize their independence, could we then be charged with timidity by Japan or China or any other eastern nation? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think so; yes, sir. Senator HAWES. Why? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Simply because we would be ducking our responsibilities. Senator HAWES. What do you mean by "ducking our responsibilities "? I do not want to ask you a question without giving the thought that I have in my own mind. Our responsibility, according to your own book, was accompanied by a promise of freedom; and in your 92109 —30 —PT 4- 2 354 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS own book you state that the Jones law encouraged the aspiration for independence and reexcited it? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator HAWES. And has made it a political issue over there? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator HAWES. Suppose it becomes the same kind of an issue in the United States, and fear grows-it grows in the Philippines and it grows here, and is not settled one way or the other-but it is the sentiment that we guarantee the independence of the Philippines. If they can not do it in the Far East, how can they, under the League of Nations, do it in the European countries? Mr. ROOSEVELT. By ' we guarantee "; you mean the United States guarantees? Senator HAWES. I mean that the whole world recognizes the independence of the islands. We can not be charged any more with running away than we have been charged with running away in our settlements in Europe. Mr. ROOSEVELT. We have been charged with that. Senator HAWES. Have we not already run away by agreeing not to reinforce the fortifications and defense works there? We have run away already. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not think I quite get your question yet, Senator Hawes. Senator HAWES. I will clear it up for you if you want me to. The Senator asked you a few moments ago whether, if there was an international understanding recognizing the independence of the Philippines, which naturally would include Japan, China, England, France and other nations, would the 'oriental mind, nursed by the occidental mind, if you want to put it that way, still think that we were afraid? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think so; yes, sir. Senator HAWES. And because of the mistaken idea, the mistaken thought of the oriental mind, because they do not know what they are talking about and do not understand our psychology, we are still to remain in? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should not say it was for that reason. Senator HAWES. The logic of that position would be that we would have to wait five hundred or a thousand years until they could see through the same glasses that Europe and the United States saw through? Mr. ROOSEVELT. If that were the only consideration, naturally it would be quite a while before we would be in a position to get out. But I do not think that is by any means either the only consideration or the only other element of responsibility. Senator HAWES. There was one other point that you were making, Mr. Roosevelt, that the agitation of this question was hurting them. That is the very point which seems to interest our manufacturers. It interests three great farm organizations; it interests the dairy organizations. The situation to-day calls for congressional clarification, and I believe that you will agree that the demand for independence in the Philippines is increasing, is becoming organized, becoming more acute. If that is followed by similar thought in this country, how are you going to just quietly brush it aside and say INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 355 that we will not think about it or talk about it? It is there and it can not be put aside. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Well, sir, in the first place I tried to make it plain that I did not for a moment say that there should be no discussion of the matter. The second point is that I think I would disagree with you on your statement that the sentiment was growing. Until this. Timberlake resolution and what has followed it, it was going in the other direction. Senator HAWES. In the Philippines? Mr. ROOSEVELT. In the Philippines. In other words, they had gotten over the virulent political agitation. Naturally most of them have their own political interests that they are very properly looking after, but it seemed that they were reaching a period where they were content to let this thing lie for a while. I do not say they could, finally, because naturally this is their ultimate aspiration. But for the first time in years they had prospects of getting rid of this and being able to concentrate their attention on the economic side of things, and now it has all come up again. Senator HAWES. The speaker of their house of representatives, the minority leader of the house, a cable from Aguinaldo, and a list of the leading merchants in the Philippines referred to in the record, all are asking for independence of some kind. In other words, so far as this committee can ascertain, up to this time every voice that has spoken from the Philippine Islands has been in favor of Philippine independence. Do you think that the movement there for independence is lessening? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I said, sir, that, I did not think the movement did not exist there, but I said that until the reintroduction in the American Congress of this thing the movement was lessening as a practical political agitation over there. Senator HAWES. It has revived? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think it has revived, but not through any local condition. It has revived through what has been done in this country to start the whole thing up again. Senator HAWES. Through a renewed hope from the discussion in the Senate that independence might come. And there has been that sentiment developing in this country which put it on selfish grounds. Do you believe that on purely economic grounds they have reawakened their aspiration and they are now more determined and earnest about it than they have been in the last 15 or 20 years? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would not put it quite that way, myself. I think their aspiration has always been there. I think it will undobutedly remain, and I think it is very proper that it should be there. It is not the aspiration; it is the agitation. The aspiration is just as much as it ever has been. As to the word " hope ", you enter an entirely different field if vou consider the question in its broadest aspects. Senator HAWES. Up to this time-I assume you will answer the question later-there has not been a single witness before this Committee who has opposed the ultimate independence of the Philippines-not one. Even of those that have the fear that they may lose their trade, not one has opposed ultimate independence. So that that leaves an open question. American capital will not go in 356 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS there with large sums until the question is settled. Foreign capital can not go in there. So I would like to ask you this: Do you believe that we ought to take a position that in a certain period we are going to give them independence, say, in 5 years. 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not sure that that is necessarily the best way of removing the uneasiness on the part of the witnesses you have just referred to. Senator HAWES. Let me get at it in another way. Are you opposed to Philippine independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Opposed to ultimate independence? No. Senator HAWES. Then Congress has to decide now, unless we are going to try to look 30 years into the future or 20 years into the future, when that time ought to be. It is an injustice to the Philippines not to know. It is an injustice to American capital not to know. It is an injustice to the Philippines because foreign capital can not come in and American capital will not go in until we fix a period. The CHAIIRM-AN. Why does the Senator say that American capital will not go in? Senator HAWES. Just a moment, please. Every one seems to agree that there ought to be a period set by Congress. What would you think that period ought to be? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not agree, sir; I do not think there should be a period set by Congress. I do not think it is either necessary or, at the present time, advisable, myself. You would ask my personal opinion, I take it? Senator HAWES. Yes. You do believe that there is a time when they should be granted their independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Ultimately, yes; if conditions are all right. Senator VANDENBERG. In other words, to sum up, what would you do if it were your responsibility right now to write a Philippine program? What would be your answer to it? The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest that you answer that question, which may involve quite a speech on your part, at the end of a fiveminute recess which we will now take in order to answer to our names in the Senate? (A brief recess was taken, at the conclusion of which the following proceedings took place:) Mr. ROOSEVELT. The question, as I remember it, was, if I had the disposal of the settlement of the Philippines problem at the present moment what I would do about it? In the five minutes time since the question was put to me I have hardly had a chance to work out a complete solution, but I should like simply to say this, that I am not sure that anything at the moment, other than the removal of uncertainty, is necessary. It is the opinion of many people who are familiar with the Jones law that without changing that law in any way a perfectly satisfactory and practical working arrangement can be developed by which the Filipinos may perhaps even get more power than they have at the present time. They have practically complete control over their government. Therefore the real problem is the uncertainty; and I agree with the Senator here and with the Speaker and others that if you can INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 357 once get rid of the uncertainty there would be the greatest chance to establish things on a permanent basis. I say that if Congress were to make some kind of a specific declaration which would clarify ii some way or other the present relationship-I can not feel that it is clarified as it is in the preamble of the Jones law; on the other hand, I am not sure that the naming of a period of years at the end of which they will be granted independence would clarify the situation-I think if you named 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years-that at the end of that time they would have independence-it might have good effects. I do not think it would be a particular inducement to either American or foreign capital to go in there. Frankly, if I had my own way I would have done nothing about it in the last six months; I would have just kept quiet about it. As for offering a specific solution on short notice I can not do it. The CHAIRMAN. You agree that there ought to be a definite settlement; you agree with those witnesses and those friends of yours and acquaintances of yours that the worst thing that is happening is the uncertainty as to what the future status of the Philippines will be? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; I do. The CHAIRMAN. That being so, what, more specifically, is your objection to a statement that at the end of 30 years there would be a plebiscite? Mr. ROOSEVELT. It seems to me, Senator, that it depends on the way it is put. There is a lot of difference between our saying we will grant them independence at the end of 30 years and saying that for a period of 30 years we will not grant them independence. In other words, it depends, it seems to me, on what your ultimate destination or ultimate solution is to be. You see the distinction that I make between those two things-that one is a positive thing, saying that we will definitely at the end of 30 years have a plebiscite or grant them independence. If we put it backwards and say that we will not make any particular changes for a period of 30 years, I think that removes the uncertainty. The CHAIRMAN. What would be your objection, if any, to a progressive tariff autonomy running over a period of 30 years which would, at the end of that time, find the Philippines under complete severance from the free-trade relationship with the United States that now exists? Mr. ROOSEVELT. My only reaction to that is that it seems to me, in spite of the fact that originally there were tariffs placed on the import of Philippine goods, that so long as we have them under the American flag and under the present relationship, it is, I might say, improper to place any limitation. Senator VANDENBURG. Suppose we change the relationship by establishing definitely this probationary program; are we not then entitled to inject into that probation all of the factors that are involved in obtaining ultimate independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator VANDENBERG. Would you say that pending some such development as that we were entitled, for instance, to bar Philippine immigration in California? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, sir; not unless you make that as part of your specific program, because you are still limiting American sovereignty of the Philippines, which may be a good thing; I do not know. 358 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator VANDENBERG. But if this probationary program were to be developed, we would be entitled in connection with that to do what we pleased in connection with immigration, would we not? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; I suppose in theory we are, anyway. Senator VANDENBERG. But morally we would, under those circlmlstances, because it is all part of the plan. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am a little bit reluctant to say anything definite without seeing the exact provision of the whole language. It is a little difficult to be very specific on any of it. Senator VANDENBERG. The bill itself, I want to say in behalf of it. was submitted with the distinct statement that it was merely a philosophy of procedure. I have no pride of opinion in the details of it whatever. But as a philosophy of procedure, would you not say in a general way that it has merit? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would say, from what I have heard of it, that certainly your bill has merits; but, again, I am very reluctant to make any definite answer, and my mind works in such a way that until I have seen the thing right before me I am too much at seaSenator VANDENBERG. I can not ask you to commit yourself in the dark, of course. Senator HAWES. Mr. Roosevelt, in this period of 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 years you would have no hope of changing the Malay mind so that it would conform itself to the American standards in any period of time, would you? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, sir. Senator HAWES. It can not be done? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think that is one of the mistakes we have made. trying to make Americans out of Filipinos. Senator HAWES. I read that in your book with great interest, that our attempts have been futile because we tried to Americanize the Filipino instead of giving him an opportunity to develop in his own way, according to his own manner of thinking, according to his traditions. So that we might eliminate, in the question of time, any thought that they would view the matter philosophically, as we do? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think so; yes. After all, they have had comparatively little practice with the form of government which we. you might say, forced on them. In other words, you might say, speaking generally, that the Jones Act gives them a constitution modeled on the American system and on certain of the constitu'tions of the various American States, but from the standpoint of political philosophy it is that form of government we gave them, and they have had it for only 14 years, which is not a very long time. Senator HAWES. I take it from your book that the Jones law, according to your opinion, complicated the situations there, that it reduced tie power of the Governor General and increased the power of the Filipinos, so that his powers are very much lessened in the islands than before that act; that naturally it makes their desire for independence greater, and their hope has been increased by the employment of Filipinos in actual government service. In other words. American teachers have been replaced by Filipino teachers; American governors of Provinces have been replaced by Filipinos; and the senate and the house can check the governor if they want to. That is what I got from your book last night. Am I correct in that? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 359 Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should say yes in general; that is to say, that the point I tried to bring out was-I put it even a little stronger than that —that you have not only the natural jealousy between the executive and legislative branches which has been current in our own history, but you have a racial factor added to that. I am not quite sure that I meant to give the impression in the book that the fact that they have more power now than they ever had before had increased their desire for independence. It mav be. But I should not like to make a statement as definite as that, because it is quite conceivable that with the granting of more power the natural desire to have a greater part in government, which, after all, is at the basis of a lot of the independent movement from the point of view of practical people out there, is satisfied; or more satisfied the more power they have. Senator HAWES. Mr. Roosevelt, since the book was written I assume, first, that this whole discussion you believe is bad for the Filipinos; that if it had not come up we would be in better shape than we are now? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator HAWES. But this is what actually happened. When the tariff discussion commenced in the Senate, four or five great groups of Americans, the three farm groups and the dairy group, andunion labor with its 5,000,000 men-and only the other day the cordage industry, qualifying its statement, said that they employ 15,000 workmen in the United States-said they could not compete with the wage scale of the Philippines. It can not be done. So that the question is here. It is before Congress. In addition to that, union labor made the statement, I will say, if you have not read it, that we can control foreign immigration under our quota basis; that we have excluded Asiatics, but we can not exclude the Filipino. I think the attitude of Congress will be that we can not do these things until we have given them their independence. We can not make slaves of them, etc. But has there not been a change? No matter what your thoughts might have been, has not the situation in the United States reached a point where something should be done? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I agree with you, sir, that the sentiment in this country has changed. I would not say that a new political element has been thrown into the discussion of the Philippine problem in this country, but it seems to me that the mere fact that such an element has been thrown in or such a new discussion has been provoked, necessarily in itself implies that there must be a change, because, after all, in this discussion that I have taken part in here to-day, no mention has been made of the other side of the thing. No mention has been made of the responsibilities which we have at the present time. I assume that has all been gone over, so it is hardly worth while for me to recur to that; but in any discussion that I have been interested in the whole thing has been considered, not just part of it-the international side, the economic side, not only how it affects our people but how it will affect them out there, Americans and Filipinos alike. And this also is a thing that has not been touched on to-day, the fact that even under the Jones bill, or under all of our previous commitments, acts. or anything you want to call them, * S Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. 360 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS with the Filipinos, we have assumed certain undertakings, if we do not want to call them obligations. Senator HAWES. In your study of this matter have you ever found or read the statement of any single great American regarding this matter who has not stated that he favored ultimate independence of the Philippines? Is there any qualification to that statement? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not think of any, but, again, it depends on what you mean by "ultimate." My recollection is that General Wood, who was a great student of all Philippine affairs and had spent many years out there before he was governor, and during his time as governor at one time stated that a period of from 50 to 75 years was the probable period of tutelage, if you want to call it that. I do not know where I saw that statement, so I can not make the positive assertion. Senator HAWES. We will take that as a fact. But do you know of a single American statesman or single American of prominence who has not said that at some time the Filipinos should be given their independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I answered that, sir, by saying that the only qualification was as to what was meant by "ultimate." I do not know of any specific definition of "ultimate." Senator HAWES. I will try to define that. That when they were ready for it at some period, either.by Act of Congress or mutual understanding, they were to be given their independence; that every public expression in America has favored it. If you know of any man who has opposed it, I would like to have his name. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am sure that people have opposed it, but I do not know anybody who answers to the definition that you have given in official life. Always I must insist on the qualification with the time element in it. The time element is a matter that has appealed to different people. In other words, different periods of time have been considered by different people. The CHAIRIAN. Earlier in the hearings there were put in some statements of President McKinley in regard to self-government, which some people interpreted as independence and others interpreted as the kind of self-government that was properly enjoyed by the States of the Union before we became quite so centralized as we are to-day. Since that time there has been brought to my attention a speech delivered by President McKinley when he was notified of his second nomination, in which he said: The Philippines are ours and American authority must be supreme throughout the archipelago. There will be amnesty, broad and liberal, but no abatement of our rights, no abandonment of our duty. There must be no scuttle policy. At another time. before a committee of Methodist ministers who called on him, he gave a brief statement of how worried he was when he found that the Philippines had " dropped in our lap," as he said. I will not read the entire quotation, although it will be put into the record later, but I will read merely the last two sentences of his remarks on that occasion: There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and educate them and civilize them and Christianize them and do the very best we could by them. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly, and the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 361 next morning I sent for the chief engineer of the War Department. I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States and [pointing to a large map on the wall of his office] there they are and there they will stay. (The McKinley material referred to is as follows in its entirety:) FROM ACCEPTANCE SPEECH The Philippines are ours and American authority must be supreme throughout the archipelago. There will be amnestly, broad and liberal, but no abatement of our rights, no abandonment of our duty. There must be no scuttle policy. We will fulfill in the Philippines the obligations imposed by the triumphs of our arms and by the treaty of peace, by international law, by the Nation's sense of honor, and, more than all, by the rights, interests, and conditions of the Philippine people themselves. No outside interference blocks the way to peace and a stable government. The obstructionists are here, not elsewhere. They may postpone but they can not defeat the realization of the high purpose of this Nation to restore order to the islands and to establish a just and generous government, in which the inhabitants shall have the largest participation for which they are capable. The organized forces which have been misled into rebellion have been dispersed by our faithful soldiers and sailors and the people of the islands, delivered from anarchy, pillage, and oppression, recognize American sovereignty as the symbol and pledge of peace, justice, law, religious freedom, education, the security of life and property, and the welfare and prosperity of their several communities. We reassert the early principle of the Republican Party, sustained by unbroken judicial precedents, that the representatives of the people in Congress assembled have full legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, subject to the fundamental safeguards of liberty, justice, and personal rights, and are vested with ample authority to act "for the highest interests of our Nation and the people intrusted to its care." This doctrine, first proclaimed in the cause of freedom, will never be used as a weapon for oppression. M'KINLEY ON THE PHILIPPINES [From Olcott's "Life of McKinley" in Stoddard's "As I Know Them" (p. 255)] McKinley, speaking to a committee of Methodist ministers who had called on him, said: "When I realized that the Philippines had dropped into our lap I confess I did not know what to do with them. I sought counsel from all sides. I walked the floor of the White House night after night, and I am not ashamed to tell you that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night, and one night it came to me this way. I do not know how it was, but it came. We could not give them back to Spain. That would be cowardly and dishonorable. We could not turn them over to France or Germany. That would be bad business and discreditable. We could not leave them to themselves, for they were unfit for self-government. There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, to educate them, civilize them, and to Christianize them, and do the very best we could by them; and then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the chief engineer of the War Department (our map maker). I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States, and [pointing to a large map on the wall of the office] there they are and there they will stay." Senator HAWES. On the matter of expressions of opinion as to a definite date, you, of course, can not keep track of these committee hearings? Mr. ROOSEVELT. NO, sir; I have not been able to follow them. Senator HAWES. A very intelligent man, a Mr. Orth, head of the American-Filipino Chamber of Commerce, very frankly stated that they had raised $17,000 to be used in opposing immediate independence. Mr. Orth and all of his associates stated that a definite period ought to be determined upon. The most vigorous opponents we have 362 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS had here have all agreed that the time should be set and the uncertainty existing should be removed. I thought I would call your attention to that. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, sir. I had heard that Mr. Orth had so expressed himself. The only point that raises in my mind is as to whether some statement of a time limit would remove the uncertainty. I think it would depend a great deal on how it was done. As I was saying to Senator Bingham a minute ago, before the recess, I think there is a great difference as to whether you say that at the end of a certain period we will grant them independence, or if you put it the other way and say that for so many years, 10, 20, 30, 50 years, we will not do it. I think there is a lot of difference. Senator HAwEs. In the Vandenberg bill, of course, it is specified that at the end of a period the Filipino Government shall take certain action, submit the matter to a convention or to a popular vote, have a readjustment of the finances and all that sort of thing, before independence actually takes place. But the point is, and the point that stands out is, that all the witnesses have agreed that there should be a fixed period and this uncertainty set aside. Every witness has said that. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Then I am an exception? Senator HAWES. Yes; you are, so far. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Because, while I agree that the removal of the uncertainty is essential, I am by no means clear in my mind that the mere setting of a date will, ipso facto, remove that uncertainty. It is conceivable; I do not know; but I am not inclined to feel that it would. Incidentally-and this is practically in answer to the question that Senator Vandenberg put-the uncertainty might very well be removed if Congress were to take up this question of the alienability of territory, which is a very complicated one. It seems to me it is quite conceivable-I am not a constitutional lawyer and I should naturally want the opinion of experts on the subject —it is quite conceivable that in the final analysis it might be very much more difficult from the constitutional point of view to get rid of the Philippines than it was to acquire them; and if that situation were ever entirely cleared up it might remove a large part of the uncertainty, because it would show us just where we stood. Senator HAWES. The legislative counsel of the Senate, composed of men who have no bias and who have trained minds, have decided that there is no doubt about the authority of Congress in this matter. Mr. ROOSEVELT. When was that done, sir? Senator HAWES. It has been put into the record. Mr. ROOSEVELT. How long ago? Senator HAWES. In the last 30 days. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Is that a public document? Senator HAwES. As far as I can ascertain, there is only one man in the Senate that makes that contention, and that is Senator Copeland. He is the only Senator that I know of who made that contention. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Has the decision of this committee been made public? Senator HAWES. Yes; it is in the record. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 363 The CAIRMAN. It is not a decision of the committee. It was the opinion of a young lawyer employed by the Senate as legislative counsel who was asked to prepare a brief showing the aspects of the situation, and although his views merit every consideration, they do not govern the Senate in its capacity as a legislative body. In part 1 of the hearings you will find a statement by Judge Daniel R. Williams setting forth his views as to the unconstitutionality of the Congress alienating any property which has been acquired. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have seen that, and it was that which led me to raise the point here. Senator HAWEs. So far no lawyer in the Senate has taken a position contrary to that given by the legislative drafting committee; and the legislative drafting committee is called upon by all the committees of Congress for opinions, and this is an opinion given by that committee to the Congress. Mr. ROOSEVELT. To what extent, Senator, has the question of, we might say, the other side of this whole business, been touched upon? In other words, has our responsibility toward the Filipino people as a whole been taken up in these hearings? Has that been touched on at all? - Senator HAWES. Scarcely at all. The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to take up now our responsibility? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes, sir. I am sorry that I did not bring with me some statistical material that I happened to have. It is in New York, but I think I can bring out my points clearly by summarizing the matter. When we went into the Philippines we undertook numerous responsibilities. Sometimes they have been referred to as problems; sometimes they have been simply spoken of as duties. We undertook, among other things, to break down the barriers of illiteracy, and we undertook to clean up the islands from the point of view of health. 'We undertook to lay economic foundations for the future development of the islands. We undertook to establish a stable government and, finally, we undertook to prepare them, in a sense, for ultimate self-government. Taking up the matter, first, of what we did in the economic development of the islands, we built, I believe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,500 miles of roads. That was done mostly under the governorship of Cameron Forbes; and although the roads were narrow, they were of a modern type and have done a lot to help improve the economic conditions on the individual islands where they are situated, for the reason that they made intercommunication much easier. But the road work needs to be pushed very much farther than it has been up to the present. They have nowhere near enough roads to meet their needs. We failed completely to do anything about interisland communication. Interisland communication is the term they use to refer to their shipping; and naturally in an archipelago it is a very important matter. Our failure to do anything in relation to stimulating interisland shipping has done much to retard the economic development of the islands. In the matter of schools and education we have done what is in the main a very creditable piece of work, but a work which it seems to me is as yet far from finished. 364 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS When we went into the islands the illiteracy was placed somewhere around 85 per cent. The last reports I have seen placed it between 50 and 60 per cent. I have seen some statements making it as low as 40 per cent, but I believe that is the expression of a hope rather than a fact. The last official census made it something like 63 or 64 per cent. I do not recall exactly. That was 10 years ago, and presumably it is less now. According to the Munro report, which was made in 1924 and which was a very thorough investigation of the educational situation on the islands, it had resulted up to that time in only about 500,000 children going through high school. That was out of a total of 7,000,000 children who were of school age. The average length of school attendance of all the children in the islands is only about three years, and it has been estimated by the Munro report that in that time they learn the equivalent of about the first grade in American schools. According to Colonel Stimson's latest report, I believe only 37 or 38 per cent of the children of school age were in school ~n 1928; which gives you an idea. I mention these figures, of course, simply to show that while we have done a lot, there is still a long distance to go in this matter of breaking down illiteracy in the islands. The health figures unfortunately I have not got here. I can sum them up in brief by hitting in round numbers the high spots. If I remember rightly, when we went into the islands there were something like 250,000 or 300,000 deaths a year. The cholera deaths were somewhere around 100,000; smallpox around 40,000, and other diseases in large numbers. We took hold of the cleaning up of the islands and by 1915 the deaths from cholera had been reduced, I believe, from about 40,000 to 820. I had the figures, but I have forgotten them at the moment. The deaths from smallpox had been reduced from about 100,000 to, I think, 276. I am sure that is within a few of the proper number. Then there began a rapid Filipinization of the government under Francis Burton Harrison and a relaxing of the guiding hand of the governor general, and almost at once that was reflected, when the hand was taken off the throttle, by an increase of the mortality figures, and by 1919, when they reached their peak, the deaths from cholera were, I believe, 40,000, and, from smallpox, around 17,000. Then, again, the American administration took hold of the matter, and when General Wood came out there they pushed it very actively, and the deaths in 1924 were, I think, six from cholera and I believe there were no deaths from smallpox. Last year I believe the figures were six deaths from smallpox and none from cholera. I will not vouch for the absolute accuracy of all these figures, because I quote then from memory, but they can all be procured from the records. Again I want to dwell on this point a little bit, Senator Hawes, that relaxing the vigilance on the part of the directing hand resulted, in the case of health work, in its retrogression, you might say. There is every reason to believe that in the event of releasing the hand again, no matter how you do it, whether by giving them more INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 365 autonomy or by giving them independence or anything else, you are going to find retrogression in all of the social activities, such as health work, schools-those are the two principal things. Have we not got a responsibility toward the great mass of the Filipino people in the fact that we have not yet fulfilled the promises that we made to them, that we have not yet completed the work we undertook to do when we went into the islands? It is all right for the governing class. They are protected; they are competent; they are educated; they are capable. But up to the present it has been the duty of the American Government to look after the interests of the mass of the Filipino people when they have got into trouble. As Mr. Stimson once brought out, there is nothing in the term " collective public opinion " to correspond to what we have here There are no associations such as our various welfare organizations which can act in a sense as a check on extremes on the part of native leaders. Illiteracy is so great that newspapers do not reach very far. The last figure I saw of a newspaper's circulation was, I believe, a daily circulation of 12,000,000. Could that be right? Mr. RoxAs. One hundred and fifty thousand. Mr. iROOSEVELT. One hundred and fifty thousand out of a population of 12,000,000, as compared with ours which is about 33,000,000 out of a population of 120,000,000. Senator HAWES. Just at that point: The Filipinos have sent over here the speaker of their house, and in his opening statement he freely admitted, as have several others who followed him representing the islands, that there would be a reaction, that there would be a period of depression, and possibly a period of reaction in educational advance and sanitary advance, but they take the position that that will occur whenever this is done, and that it is better for them to face it now than to face it later on. And that is the position of even our business men who are hostile to independence; that there must come a period when this responsibility is placed upon them and they have an opportunity to face these very things that you are talking about, which will follow in five years or 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, or whenever they are given their independence. As long as we hold the islands as we do now, they can not move forward. American capital will not come in until there is a fixed status. Foreign capital can not come in, and they are all the time absorbing a philosophy of civilization, and when the break comes it will be harder as time goes on. I may have misstated the speaker's position, but I think that is a fair statement of it. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is the most depressing thing that I have heard about the Philippines in a long time, because if it means that they are never going to learn, no matter how long the period of tutelage and the period of practice in self government and the opportunity to go ahead-but I can not agree with that. They have gone ahead very rapidly, almost too rapidly. Senator HAWES. I have not made that statement at all. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Then I misunderstood you, Senator. Senator HAWES. Yes, you did, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. If it is going to be no better, if there is going to be just as much retrogression after years of experience and tutelage, I see little hope for the Philippines. 366 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Oh, no. You certainly misunderstood me. In every new country, or in Caucasian countries where there is a political upheaval or a responsibility placed upon a group of people and a strong, rich, powerful government has removed its hands, there is a period of suffering that they will have to go through with. There is no doubt about that. But I do not mean to say, and neither did the Speaker mean to say, that they had not made great progress and would not continue it. But under the most favorable circumstances, even 30 years from now, the wrench would come at that period, and they would rather face it now than face it 30 years from now. That seems also to be in the position of the business men who have appeared here. Mr. ROOSEVELT. When the period comes there will be a complete collapse? Senator HAWES. Oh, no; no complete collapse at all. There will be a change. Mr. ROOSEVELT. A change for the worse? Senator HAWES. A temporary change for the worse, but merely a temporary change. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Well, far be it from me Senator HAWES. That will follow in India. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I can not agree with you, Senator. Senator HAWEs. It would follow in any country in the world. You are a student of much more experience than myself, of course, but there is always that temporary period of reaction when any country adjusts itself to new conditions. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; but that change is in proportion to the unpreparedness of the country to meet the new conditions. It seems to me that the Philippines ought to be very much more prepared to meet that condition 30 years from now, if you want to use the term 30 years, when they not only will have had more experience in this form of government than we have given them, but also will have had a little chance to develop more of their economic resources and get the financial and economic basis of a free state. Senator HAWES. The answer to that seems to be this, that then the difference will be greater; it will be harder for them to adjust themselves to a wrench 20 or 30 years from now-I mean, an economic wrench-than it would be if they were told to-day that at a certain period they will be given their independence and they must learn to adjust themselves to it, instead of wandering along with the uncertainty facing them of their sanitary conditions, their educational conditions, and their financial conditions. That seems to be the opinion of the gentleman who is president of the railroad out there with a $12,000,000 investment, and another one with an investment of $8,000,000-that there ought to be a fixed definite time so that they can adjust themselves and so that they can prepare for facing the economic wrench that will come. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Are we to assume that an economic wrench is inevitable? Senator HAWES. I think so, myself. I do not see how it can be avoided. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 367 Mr. ROOSEVELT. It seems to me that that depends on conditions in the islands and in this country 30 years from now, or whenever the time would come. I do not know. Senator HAWES. We will.both have to admit that we can only guess what is going to happen 30 years from now. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mine is certainly only a guess. But even accepting that, I raise the point as to whether we have not got in the meantime obligations to the great mass of the Filipino people. We have been talking for the most part about three classes, about merchants or business men who have invested a few million dollars in the islands; about American business interests in this country which fear competition from Philippine products, and about the Filipino political leaders. I have never for a moment questioned the sincerity of the Filipino political leaders who bespeak independence, whether it be immediate or ultimate. But that does not change the point that I am trying to raise as to whether we have not got obligations to people other than the political class which I think in many ways might benefit quite well from immediate independence. But have we not obligations to the rest of the people of the islands? Senator HAWES. That expression seems to be used frequently in your book, and by others-the political class. I do not know how any people can express themselves on any subject unless it is through somebody that they elect for that purpose, and then when they have met in their assemblies or their conventions and sent those people to the United States to speak for the Philippines, who else could we hear from? Who is there in all the Philippines that oppose independence, that you know of? I will ask you that question. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is a question that is always put, and the answer to the question is perfectly unsatisfactory, namely, that I have had many individual Filipinos tell me that they did not feel that independence would be a good thing, at least for a long time to come, and yet as a practical matter the Filipinos think they have to speak for it. I would if I were in their place. Senator HAwES. Mr. Vandenberg tried to get the names from a man who has an investment of $12,000,000 over there of some one prominent outstanding Filipino who was not in favor of independence, some one person, either official or unofficial, or in any branch of Filipino life that did not favor independence, but no name has so far been put into this record, not a one. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is for the Filipinos to put in. I can not fill that omission. Senator HAwES. No; it is for the Americans to put in. I can understand, of course, that in the Philippines we are going to have Tories. We had them in America. Some crawled on their knees to the Crown. They were opposed to our liberties. There may be some over there. But there is no name in the record up to this point of any Filipino or any organization of Filipinos opposed to independence. They may appear. Mr. ROOSEVELT. It is not up to me to fill that omission. Senator HAWES. Somebody has got to fill it. We get this propaganda that those men are not in earnest, that they are not sincere, t 368 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS that they are going through a political motion because it is a popular thing back home; and then we get this vague statement that while they really do not want it they are saying they want it and are not telling the truth about it. But when we try to find out some one American or some one Filipino who says that he is opposed to independence there is not a single name in this record up to this point on that subject. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have not had an opportunity to keep up with what has been spoken here, so that I can not throw any further light on the subject. Senator HAWES. If you know of any names, Mr. Roosevelt, of men that are opposed to ultimate independence, it would be a very valuable contribution. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I know a number of Filipinos who have told me so in confidence, but one can not violate that confidence. I admit that is a very unsatisfactory answer; it gets you nowhere. The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us why it is that a people of that sort are unwilling to have their opinions known? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think it is primarily for political reasons. I do not for a moment question the sincerity of the Filipino leaders' demands for independence. Senator HAWES. Speaking of Filipino leaders, a man just does not spring into leadership. He must have a following to be a leader. Does he not represent a group sentiment of some kind? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I should not say so; no, sir. Some do, in a small way. After all, you know, in spite of having the frame of a representative government, the diffusion of it is nowhere near as great there as it is in this country. As I was saying a moment ago, there is not there the keen and active response to public opinion that there is in this country. Senator HAWES. There are a million voters over there who actually vote, are there not? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I believe the figure is somewhere around that. Senator HAWES. A very high percentage of those who are entitled to vote do vote; a higher percentage than in the United States? Mr. ROOSEVELT. In spite of that it is a small proportion out of the total there. We had about 19,000,000 voters in the last presidential election, and that was out of a total of 120,000,000. I believe they had about 1,000,000 voters, and that is out of a total of about 12,000,000. So, you see, the disproportion is considerable. I simply want to bring that side of the matter up, but even so, I do not want to give you the impression that I feel that the gentlemen who come here and who talk there in behalf of independence do not mean what they say. I think you will find this, that a great many Filipinos have no idea what independence means, and I would hazard the opinion that if you were to cross-question a great many prominent Filipinos you would come to the conclusion that they mean autonomy; they do not mean independence. They do not mean complete severance whereby the United States washes her hands of the whole business. I made a statement to that effect some time ago and was roundly spanked by the Filipino press for saying that I thought that if there were any separation it should be a flat divorce, that we should retain INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 369 no control of any sort, no financial guarantees, no further protection. In other words, I tried to bring out the complete responsibilty which would be theirs if the American power were absolutely withdrawn. I do not think they want that. I think they do want to be able to run their own government; and, for that matter, they do now. Senator HAWES. Unfortunately, our position, Mr. Roosevelt, is that we must rely upon somebody selected to speak for the Filipinos; and all that have been selected to speak for them say that they want to accept that responsibility and that they do want complete independence. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not question that, sir. All I question is whether there is in the Philippines an understanding of what complete, immediate, and absolute independence really means. That is all I question. Senator HAWES. Who could best say what they understand by it? The speaker of their house or the minority leader or their own representatives? Are we to put our interpretation on what they understand, or are their own leaders to put that interpretation on it? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Naturally, we listen with the greatest interest and respect to what their own leaders put upon it. I am not speaking about the leaders. The only point I make is that I doubt and question this expression of opinion. I doubt whether even the intelligent Filipinos, when they speak of independence, mean complete indepence with no American protection, no financial guaranties, no aids of any sort, but just turn them loose-no free trade, everything closed down and treated as a foreign country. I do not think they understand that. Senator HAWES. That can be cleared up, and in a short while. Two or three cables would bring expressions of opinion stating full responsibility and what they understood by it. That is one thing we could clear up. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is all right. I am simply expressing my own opinion. I am taking much more time than I had expected to, Mr. Chairman. Senator CUTTING. Speaking of the proportion of registered voters or eligible voters who vote, do they have woman suffrage? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I believe not yet. Senator CUTTING. That would make the proportion almost exactly the same. Mr. RoxAs. One million two hundred and twenty thousand actually vote. Mr. ROOSEVELT. If you doubled that, it would be about the same as ours. Senator CUTTING. It would be a bigger proportion than ours. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Of course, they have not woman suffrage. I do not feel satisfied that I have yet quite made my point clear, at least to you, Senator Hawes, on this question of responsibility to the rest of the Filipinos. Let us assume that there is no difference of opinion, that they all say unanimously they want complete, immediate, absolute independence to-morrow. Let us assume that that is not questioned in mny way. 92109-30-PT 4 —3 370 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The point I raise is this: Is that fair to the great mass of the Filipino people? Can the United States. just rid itself by some declaration, some act of Congress, of all its moral responsibilities toward the Filipino people? For years we have been looking after them, possibly too much, but let us leave that out of the question. The fact is we have been nursing them along, you might say. We have been helping them in every way. We have been spending min6y- for them. We have been encouraging them in education. We have been putting in wells so that they will get good water to drink instead of getting sick from drinking contaminated water. We have done a great deal for them. It has been said that we have done too much. I do not want to raise that point. But the point I do want to raise is that suddenly we stop all this and the islands are turned loose, simply for two reasons-there is demand for complete, immediate, and absolute independence, and here there are selfish interests that think that demand should be gratified. But what have you got You have got 11,000,000 people who have been turning to Uncle Sam when they got into trouble and who have been relying on us, suddenly given independence, which many of them have not even heard of, and do not even know what it is, what it means. Is it fair to them? Can we just Irid ourselves of a responsibility like that? Senator HAwES. For 300 years the Spanish tried to change the Malay, tried to education him in a way. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Not very much, sir; no, sir. Senator HAWES. They, a Caucasian race, had control and domination. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; but they did not try to educate them, except a very small group. Senator HAWES. We have had them for 30 years. We send one of our boys to school at about 7 or 8 years of age, and in about 10 years we have sent him through college. We are through. The point is that the Filipinos want to know, and I think the American people want to know, when we are going to get through. Can we not guess now as well as we can by putting it off 30 years and then guessing? There are economic questions and questions of self-government and other questions coming along, We have been nursing them, as you say, and it is suggested that we continue to nurse them for another 30 years. Is not that a little bit too much nursing? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not at all sure that it is. Certainly 14 years is very little nursing Senator HEAWES. That is more than we get over here. Mr. ROOSEVELT. You can not talk of nations in terms of individuals. Senator HAWES. You and I will agree, I think-we did agree a few moments ago-that the Malay and the Caucasian minds are different. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Certainly. Senator HAWES. And all the schooling in the world will not change racial characteristics? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No; but it will improve them, it will fit them. Senator HAWES. We will never make Anglo-Saxons of the Filipinos. \ INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 371 Mr. ROOSEVELT. NO; but we will teach them more about the form of government than they know at present. Senator HAWES. They can get the form of government easily enough. Mr. ROOSEVELT. After 14 years' experience Senator HAWES. They will adopt our form of government. You and I know that they will do that, just as they have in LatinAmerica. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes; but have they adopted it? They have adopted the form of it, that is true, but the substance is very different. Senator HAwEs. I believe you say in your book, do you not, that they have the same form of government in Latin-America but that it is not interpreted the same way as we interpret it? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Words to that effect. Senator HAWES. That will apply with the Filipino, I suppose? Mr. ROOSEVELT. But can that relieve us of all obligations to the rest of them? That is the point I am not clear about. Senator HAWES. We ave got a lot of obligations to people in our own country that the National Government does not exercise. We leave it to the States. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. The other point, Senator, and then I will have finished all that I desired to say, is on the question of stability of government. All of these arguments that I have heard on the question of independence have been predicated on the maintenance of a stable government. There, again, one has to pass into, you might say, the realm of political metaphysics, by which I mean that we have to try to guess the future, and it is very unsatisfactory. But there are only two points I want to make about that. The first is to remind you all of what General Wood, who I think one must admit knew the Philippines and the Filipinos very well and who had a great sympathy and friendship for them and confidence in them, said on one occasion-I believe it is in one of his reportsthat the existence of a stable government under the American flag can not be taken to imply the existence of a stable government when that flag is withdrawn. In other words, it does not follow that just because they have had 14 or 20 or 30 years of our government, with always in the background the American flag, that that stability will continue when the American power is withdrawn. In the first place, there are local difficulties, there are local jealousies which are not altogether realized in this country. Sometimes they are exaggerated; but the mere fact that there are various linguistic groups and the linguistic differences are such that people from one group have difficulty in understanding people from another group and that either English or Spanish has to be the language that bridges these linguistic differences-that starts us out with a situation which is different from what we have in this country. In the past there have been jealousies-minor, to be sure, but nevertheless jealousies-between these different groups. Whenever a proposal has been made that the language of one group should be made the national language, at once all the others have risen up to say, "No, not that one. Ours must be the language." That is perfectly natural. 372 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Is there any similiarity between that situation and the one in Switzerland, where all the signs and public announcements are given in three languages? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Very often that is done in the Philippines. Senator HAWEs. That is done in Switzerland. Mr. Roosevelt. Yes; but do not forget that Switzerland with 300 or 400 years of political libertiesSenator HAWES. But there is an analogy. I can remember in my time. in St. Louis, when documents were printed in German and advertisements were printed in German in certain communities. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Again, St. Louis has had somewhat more experience in self-government than the Philippines have had. Senator HAWES. Exactly; and they never will, according to your own statement and mine Mr. ROOSEVELT. Not according to my statement. I must have failed to make myself clear. Senator HAWES. Then I did not understand you. Do you think the Malay will ever have the Anglo-Saxon's view of government, no matter whether we have them a thousand years? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Evidently I have not made myself quite clear. My statement in my book, and the statement that I have repeated here, was that I do not think you can make an Anglo-Saxon out of a Malay. My other statement was that I do not think the Filipinos necessarily want to adopt in toto, in full, the Anglo-Saxon form of government. I did not mean to give the impression that I felt that with long tutelage, even under the Jones law, they would not have much more experience and would not, as they passed on for a generation or two. be much better fitted to handle the machinery of government than they are at the present time. That is a distinction which I want to be sure to get clear, because I would not want you to feel that I did not appreciate that. Senator HAWES. It is just a matter of our holding these people against their wishes and against the wishes of our own country for another thirty years to bring about the condition that you describe as the happy, perfect oneMr. ROOSEVELT. I do not so describe it, but I think it is a more desirable condition than existence apart at the present time. My last point, Mr. Chairman, has to do with one of the groups of the islands, the Moros. The Moros, as you know, are the Mohammedan element. There are only about 500,000 of them. They happen to inhabit one of the rishest of the undeveloped islands, Mindanao, and also in the Sulu Archipelago. They are a people who have had a special relation with the Americans. They are a quarrelsome people. They fought us, they fought the Spaniards, they fought the Filipinos. But the Americans made an agreement with them when we finally disarmed them, which I believe international lawyers might say was not altogether binding, because it was simply a treaty between one general and the heads of contending forces, but the substance of which has been carried on in our relations with the Moro people until the passage of the Jones law. I do not want to go into details of the present or recent quarrels between the Filipinos and the Moros. I simply want to report to INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 373 you the conversations that I have had with various Moro leaders and that I have had with Americans who have lived among the Moros for years and know their language; and I make this statement calling your attention to the fact that naturally their sentiments are strongly pro-Moro, to this effect, that if we get out, if America withdraws from the islands and does not make some special provision to cover the Moros-in other words, if the Americans turn the Moros over to the Filipinos-they will chase every last Filipino into the sea. And it is a thing that they can do, too, because they are a fighting, active people, and it is a matter of life and death for them. That is a limited thing, but it is a problem which it seems to me can not be overlooked in considering some of the possible consequences of the granting of independence. Senator HAWES. You mean there would be trouble between the Moros and the Filipinos Mr. ROOSEVELT. I most certainly do, as far as one can tell. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many Filipinos there were in the island of Mindanao in the last days of the Spanish occupation? Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, sir; I can not give you any figures. My recollection is that in one or two of what are now the northeastern provinces there were some comparatively small settlements of Filipinos who had come there from Cebu and some of the central islands. Mindanao is still mostly uninhabited, and the Moro country is in two principal sections, one around Lake Lanao and one in the Cotabato Valley. A third is in the Sulus. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of an arrangement was made with the Moros by the American officers at the time the Moros brought in their arms? Mr. ROOSEVELT. My understanding of that was that what was interpreted as a promise on the part of the Americans was given to the Moros, that they would protect them from their former enemies, by which were meant the Filipinos with whom they had been quarreling for years. Certainly the impression grew up there among the various Moro leaders that thev would subject themselves to government by Americans but not government by Filipinos. When I was there again the constant statement of everybody, or all the Moros I spoke with, was, " Give us American officials; take away the Filipino officials. We have quarreled with them for years and we prefer the Americans, because the Americans will behave themselves." Whether they would or not I do not know; but that was what they said. The CHAIRMAN. Did you talk with a great many Moros? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I talked with a large group of the leading Moro datus. The CHAIRMAN. What was their attitude toward the question of independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Their attitude was one of strong opposition on the question of independence. The CHAIRMAN. Did you get the impression that they were representative of a large number of people? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Certainly they were representative of the Moros; and, of course, the Moros only form, as I said, about 500,000 people. 374 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS But it is a very important group and it occupies some of the richest territory of the islands. The CHAIRMAN. Did you talk with any Moros who were anxious for independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. If they were anxious for independence they very carefully hid that fact from me, because, as I said, from conversations I had with different datus-I did not go down to the Sulu Provinces-they were very positively antiindependence; in fact, much more so than most of the American people I know who are opposed to independence, because they felt it was a matter of very great personal moment, whereas to us it was a somewhat acadctellic question. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think we are under moral obligation to the Moros to give them a separate form of government in case we give the Philippines independence? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think a moral obligation toward the Moros exists that is very great. As to whether that could or should be given practical form by making some separate agreement with them or detaching them from the rest of the Philippines I do not know. There are lots of complications about it. It would depend entirely on the form in which it was done. In so far as the moral obligation is concerned, my answer would be yes. The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the provisions of the socalled Bacon bill? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I remember it; yes. But that provided, as I remember it, under the present form of government, to establish a separate governor for the whole Moro district to be appointed by the President, rather than for getting rid of the rest of the Philippines and making for the Province of Mindanao, or anything you want to call it, a separate government. Senator HAwES. In regard to the Moros, there are some 400,000 or 500,000 of them, representing about 4 or 5 per cent of the population? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Senator HAWES. You would not say that because 4 or 5 per cent opposed independence that should weigh against the determination of the rest of the islands? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Well, I will qualify my answer to that. I think you have got to regard the Moros a little bit apart from the rest of them on account of this very special relationship we have always had with them. But, again, more fully to answer your question, it would depend on how complete an expression of opinion you could get from the great mass of the Filipino people. Of course where you and I apparently are somewhat at different views is that I am not as clear in my mind as perhaps I ought to be about this matter of understanding just what independence means. If I felt perfectly sure that every Filipino who could and would vote understood exactly everything that this implies, then I might make my statement somewhat different from what I have. Senator HAWES. Do you not think that the two Commissioners and the Speaker of the House and the minority leader of the House would rather quickly clear up that question by stating the liabilities and responsibilities that underlie it? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 375 Mr. ROOSEVELT. I am not sure that a me.re statement of liabilities and responsibilities settles a point like that. I think it has somewhat the same danger as when we pass resolutions or when some of us make a speech denouncing something or other, and then we sort of feel it is all cleared up; it is all straightened out. A mere statement of liabilities would help. To the best of my knowledge no such statement has been categorically, plainly, and simply made, certainly not up to two weeks ago. Even when it is stated it takes a little while for the idea to sink in, you know. The idea of liabilities is somewhat new out there. Senator HAwEs. You are anticipating, as I am, troubles in the Philippines, even probably armed troubles; but when you go back to our own history, we find that we fought for independence. We had long Indian wars; we had a Whisky Rebellion, and we killed a million Anglo-Saxon citizens of the United States because of a dispute during the Civil War. Those things have to be worked out by a nation. There will be troubles over there; there will be depressions. But you do not believe, do you, that our continually holding these islands would settle the religious disputes between the Mohammedan Moros and the rest of the country which is supposed to be Christian? That will go on forever, will it not? Mr. ROOSEVELT. It will go on for quite a long time. Senator HAWES. I think they will have to fight it out in their own way. Do you think our obligation, because the Moros were disarmed, is a moral obligation of sufficient strength for us to keep an army or navy over there to defend the Moros? Mr. ROOSEVELT. When you come to the definition of "moral obligations," as far as I can see, one gets on very debatable ground. A promise is a promise, it seems to me. We made this promise to the Moros. I do not see how we can just simply — Senator HAwEs. Would you think that was any more binding than our promise to give independence to the Philippines? What is the difference? Mr. ROOSEVELT. The two things are in conflict. Senator HAWES. Yes. One was a promise by a military commander and the other was a promise by the American people. That is the difference. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Was the other more than a statement by a series of individuals? We get back again to the debatable question of the binding force of a preamble; but that I imagine has been threshed out here, and I have no particular views on it myself. Senator HAwEs. I think it has been generally assumed by every witness we have had before us so far that there is a binding promise of ultimate Philippine independence. I have not heard it disputed by any witness. Maybe the chairman has. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the witnesses have agreed that there is any binding promise. The statement in the preamble of the Jones Act is not in the nature of a promise at all. Senator HAWES. I disagree with the chairman about that. The CHAIRMAN. It is not even so worded. Mr. ROOSEVELT. That is my understanding of it. 376 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. It is not my understanding of it, and I still make the assertion that every witness who appeared here, and the record will so show, assumed that there was a promise. What is the difference between a promise by the great American people in this assembly and a promise by a military commander in an emergency? Which is the more binding? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not think you can call the other a promise by a military commander in an emergency. There was no emergency. The Moros had been disarmed; the fighting had ended. They put themselves into our hands. They surrendered to us. Senator HAWES. You do not believe that a general or a colonel in the field can express a policy for the American people? Is not that for Congress to do? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think you will find, sir, that in 1900 and 1901 and 1902 a great many of the policies of the American Government in the Philippines were expressed by military commanders. Senator HAWES. The only expression that Congress has made has been a joint resolution, and that was an act of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. But the statement to which the Senator refers is not in the act, and, furthermore, it is not a promise but a statement of opinion. Senator HAWES. Well, of course, the chairman and I differ. The chairman might take the position that the Declaration of Independence was not an expression of the American people because it was not an act of Congress. We are apt to disagree about that. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Senator, I think that finishes my statement, unless somebody has some further questions. Senator CUTTING. About this Moro problem, how will that be altered in any way by waiting 30 years, or any other particular period? Mr. ROOSEVELT. So far as I can see, the Moro question is one which is gradually working out at the present time. It is a very difficult one, a very uneasy one, because, as the Senator said, the antagonism is still very great, but I think, since the relations between the Moros and the Americans still, through some miraculous means, happen to be friendly-and I can not understand it, because we have so many times gone back on our promises to them-that there is some chance as long as we are there of being able slowly to pull the people together. They have had a great many quarrels. In recent years, possibly through this process of too rapid acceleration of the Filipinization of the government, there were more conflicts between Moros and Filipinos than were necessary; but as the Moros become more educated, and particularly if we ever do see the necessity of working through Americans for a longer period, just as we are doing with the hill people, I think it will gradually work itself out. We will at least have a good measure of preparation there. Senator CUTTING. You think they will eventually be able to get along with the Filipinos? Mr. ROOSEVELT. In 50 years, perhaps; yes-in a couple of generations. But what is that in the life of a country? It is nothing. You can not make over a nation or create a nation in 14 years. Senator HAWES. After all the old boys are dead. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 377 Mr. ROOSEVELT. The old boys will be dead, and that, of course, will make things better. At the present time they are still living. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Roosevelt. The committee will take a recess until 2.15. (Whereupon, at 12.50 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 2.15 o'clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened at the expiration of the recess, at 2.15 o'clock p. m.) Senator HAWES (presiding). Chairman Bingham has been detained for a short while, and he asked me to proceed with the hearig until such time as he arrives. The first witness is Mr. John M. Switzer. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SWITZER, NEW YORK CITY Senator HAWES. Just give your name, address, and business. Mr. SWITZER. John M. Switzer. Senator, I have no business. Senator HAWEs. What is your address? Mr. SWITZER. NO. 48 West Fifty-ninth Street, New York City. Senator HAWES. What has your former business been? Mr. SWITZER. I was for 21 years in business in the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. Are you connected with the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce? Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir. I am director in it. I used to be president of it. Senator HAWES. How long have you been a member of that association? Mr. SWITZER. Since it was organized. Senator HAWES. You are a director at the present timne? Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. You are familiar with the fact that they am raising funds and making this fight against independence, are yoq nbt? Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir. Senator HAWES. Are you appearing as an individual? Mr. SWITZER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an extended brief, entirely too long to be read. For the sake of a basis of discussion I have a short summary which I should like to read, but I suggest that it does not go in the record, for the reason that I would much prefer, and, in fact, I want the longer brief to go in the record, and to put the short one in is merely duplication, which I think is unnecessary. Senator HAWEs. I may want to ask you some questions, and unless there is some statement from you, there would be nothing on which to predicate my questions. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, would you want to ask those questions as I go along, or would you let me read the whole thing? Senator HAWES. I would like to ask you questions, as you proceed, of course. Mr. SWITZER. That means, then, that you would have to put this in the record as well. 378 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Just proceed as all the other witnesses have done, and say whatever you please. Mr. SWITZER. I hate to clutter up the record. I have a wholesome regard for not having too much in the record. But, whichever way you want it — Senator HAWES. Proceed in your own way. Mr. SWITZER. I am appearing here in representation of no one but myself. I have a very small investment in the Philippines. I have never been paid anything and never shall be for my efforts in matters of any kind of legislation and I pay my own expenses. Senator HAWES. What is the nature of your investment in the Philippines? Mr. SWITZER. It is in rubber and sugar. I should be very glad to answer questions about that as fully as anyone cares to ask them. Senator HAWES. That is a sufficient answer. Mr. SWITZER. The fact is, I rather court the questions. Thirty-two years ago I left my university to go to the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. Remaining there 21 years in business, and always taking a keen interest in our national undertaking there I naturally have a deep and genuine interest in the highest welfare of the Philippines. I am opposed to determining our Philippine policy on any other basis than what is for the highest welfare of the Filipino people. Any discussion on our part of the economics of this question is merely to answer the proponents of Philippine independence. I am not opposed to Philippine independence but am unalterably opposed to near-by independence because that unquestionably is against the best interests of the Filipino people. Senator HAWES. May I interrupt you there? Are you in favor of Philippine independence? Mr. SWITZER. Eventually; yes. Home politics and natural nationalism bring the Filipinos to go further in asking for independence than is best for them. Moreover, the entire responsibility in the matter rests on us and not on them. Poking our heads into the sand by granting premature independence will not shield us from the storm of condemnation following the disastrous consequences of that act. The responsibility is on us, and on us only, and we must not be carried off our feet by selfish interests at home or by overzealous sentimentalism in the islands. Senator HAwEs. That selfish interest applies to all classes of selfish interests, including the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce. Mr. SWITZER. Right. There is no disagreement about that, Senator. We must have undertaken some task in the Philippines or we would not have stayed there 32 years. Throughout our extended brief it must be clear to anyone that we have not as yet completed the contract we made first with ourselves and second with the Filipinos. To-day there are several immediate or near-by independence bills before Congress. Probably not over 5 per cent of the Members of Congress ever saw the Philippines. Senator HAWES. How many Congressmen do you think have been to Europe or Asia? Mr. SWITZER. Oh, Senator, they are not legislating on Europe. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 379 Senator HAWES. Oh, yes, they do. We have the World Court, and all sorts of legislation. I am just wondering if you think that a Congressman who has not been to the Philippines is not permitted to have an opinion on the subject. Mr. SWITZER. Oh, no, Senator. I do not say that for a moment. But I do say that a Congressman who has not been in the Philippines is very seriously handicapped in arriving at an opinion with reference to this subject. Senator HAWES. I agree with you. Mr. SWITZER. During our 32 years in the islands, Congress has never sent there a committee of its own members to investigate. It investigates everything but the Philippines, the thing farthest away and least understood. For years domestic and Cuban sugar interests have been back of the agitation for Philippine independence. That was done in the guise of liberating the Filipinos from American oppression. The American people were not impressed, knowing we were not oppressing the Filipinos. The sugar interests made no headway. Last year they came out in the open with the Timberlake resolution, which provided that only a limited amount of Philippine sugar could come here free of duty, the balance paying full duty. No corresponding restrictions were to be placed on any United States products entering the Philippines. This was pure 150-year-old colonial exploitation. That is the only concerted effort ever made by Americans to exploit the Philippines and that was done by those who had been asking for Philippine independence on the ground of justice to the Filipinos. Congress rightfully rejected that bill on the ground that so long as the Philippines are under our flag we will not exploit them. Therefore, as was threatened last year, these sugar interests now ask for complete and immediate independence. Senator HAWES. Where do you get that? Is there anything in the record to disclose it so far? Mr. SWITZER. Just what? Senator HAWEs. That the sugar interests are making this statement. No witness has appeared here representing the sugar interests. Mr. SWITZER. NO; and they are not likely to, Senator. Senator HAWES. Then why do you make that statement? Mr. SWITZER. Because last year the threat was made before the Senate Finance Committee that if the Timberlake resolution or restriction was not put through the move for independence would be the next thing. Moreover, on the floor of the Senate and the House, in innumerable discussions, it is a clear case that the main motive back of this is to get into a position where we can tax Philippine products coming into the United States. Senator HAWES. Mr. Switzer, so far three great national farm organizations have appeared in favor of Philippine independence, and when asked the question, stated that their demand for Philippine independence was not exclusively on the ground of their own interests. Union labor appeared representing 5,000,000 American workingmen, and asked for it. The cordage people say that it unsettles the employment of 15,000 workmen; and so far nobody 380 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS has appeared representing the sugar people. I notice that you put the whole onus of this thing on the sugar people. Mr. SWITZER. I certainly do, Senator. I shall not retire from that position. Senator HAWEs. They have not appeared here. Mr. SWITZER. No; and they are not likely to appear. Senator HAWES. Why? Mr. SWITZER. I think I will show you a little later. Senator HAWES. I know, but just let us know why. Mr. SWITZER. I will tell you why. Senator HAWES. If there is $2,000,000,000 of American cpl)ital invested in Cuba, have they not the same right to be heard that you have? Mr. SWITZER. Certainly they have. I am not objecting to their coming here, but I am predicting that they are not likely to come here, for the simple reason that it has been so apparent on the floor of the Senate and the House that the main object back of this drive for Philippine independence is an economic one. Senator HAWES. Yes. Mr. SWITZER. Moreover, the people of this country, I think, have a sort of revulsion against independence being determined on any such basis, and I think the sugar people are beginning to realize that they have overplayed their hand. - Senator HAWES. Yet that is the basis of the organization of which you are a member and an officer-purely selfish; purely economic. Why do you draw a distinction between your organization, which presents a selfish argument against it, and another organization, that raises sugar, which has a selfish object? What is the difference between the two? Mr. SWITZER. Senator, the first thing I said here was that I am appearing here representing only myself. Senator HAWES. Never mind. I ask you the question. What is the difference between the Philippine-American Chamber of ComnnierCe Mr. SWITZER. The difference is this, Senator. I think I heard you make the statement this morning that thus far no business manl, or no one representing business.interests, appeared here opposed to independence. You will not find any of them opposed to independence at all, but do not misjudge that. Practically all of us, I think, are in favor of ultimate independence. The Americans who have resided in the Philippines whether or not they ever had a dollar invested there are practically unanimous in opposition to it in the near future, because we know enough about the situation in the Philippines to know that that is not for the best interests of the Filipino people. 'We do not have to oppose independence merely because there are business interests over there. We are opposing it because, from our knowledge of the situation, we are convinced that it is not best for them. Senator HAWES. You interjected this matter by saying that the sugar interests were in favor of Philippine independence, overlooking the fact that while that may be a selfish motive, every one of the opponents who have appeared here has had a selfish interest, and you, in your statement, make no comment on the three great farm organ INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 381 izations, union labor, and the rope manufacturers, who have also appeared. If that record were to stand, it would appear that there was nobody here in favor of Philippine independence except the sugar people. Mr. SWITZER. That is not the case. One reason why I am dealing here primarily with sugar is because the. oil people have already submittted elaborate briefs here, and nobody up to the present time has submitted an elaborate discussion of the sugar question. In order not to duplicate to0 much I have tried to cover the sugar side of it more than anything else. Senator HAWES. You are not in the sugar business, are you? Mr. SWITZER. I am not in any business. Senator HAWES. I mean, you were in the rubber business, and what else? Mr. SWITZER. No. Those are just merely side issues. I happened to have some stock in that. Senator HAWES. Your investments were in rubber and what else? Mr. SWITZER. No. My real business was not that at all. I was president of the Pacific Commercial Company, the largest commercial organization in the Philippines. There are dozens of Filipinos who know me as having been the head — Senator HAWEs. You said you had some private investments. Mr. SWITZER. That is right. Senator HAWES. What were they-rubber and sugar? Mr. SWITZER. That is what I have now. Senator HAWES. That is what you have now? Mr. SWITZER. That is just a holdover from the old days. Senator HAWES. You want your sugar to come in free? Mr. SWITZER. I do not give a rap about the sugar, Senator. Senator HAWES. You are emphasizing the fact that the American sugar manufacturer and the Cuban sugar manufacturer are opposed to it. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, I am glad you asked me that question. I was hoping you would. I am interested in rubber and sugar to such a small extent that it is more or less laughable, but, nevertheless, I am. But let me show you how, in all probability, independence would be very beneficial to the rubber industry of the Philippine Islands. Rubber comes into this country to-day free of duty. If the Philippine Islands were independent, the scale of wages would undoubtedly go down. We could produce rubber cheaper than we are producing it to-day, so that whatever hurts sugar helps rubber. Take your choice. That is my position. Senator HAWES. I do not follow you at all about the scale of rubber producers going down in the Philippines. Mr. SWITZFR. I do not think you caught my point, Senator. The point I tried to make was that under independence the scale of wages would go down, and in that way we could produce rubber cheaper than we can produce it to-day. Senator HAWES. I heard you, Mr. Switzer, but I do not see why you make that statement. Why do you make the statement that if the rubber production is going to increase in the Philippines that particular form of labor would decrease in price? Mr. SWITZER. My dear Senator, I do not say that. I say the standard of wages in every industry would go down. 382 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. No. You said the rubberMr. SWITZER. No, Senator. You misunderstood me. How could the wages in just one industry-rubber-go down without wages in every other industry going down? Senator HAWES. I do not understand it myself. Mr. SWITZER. I have no intention of conveying that idea at all. The sugar industry claims that Philippine sugar depresses this market and displaces domestic sugar. Cuban sugar, seeing no im propriety in meddling in our domestic affairs, asks for the elimination of Philippine sugar because it displaces Cuban sugar in this market. Both rail against the rapid increase of Philippine sugar. To give a wrong picture of the increase of this sugar they take the run-down production during or after six years of war and compare that with to-day's production, and of course show an increase of over 600 per cent. They coml:ared the years 1901 and 1903, actually during a war, with 1927. The yearly average for the years 1900-1903 is the lowest of any years back to 1868. There are many other unfair comparisons to scare Congress. Now, what are the real facts? The average yearly production for the five years, 1893-1897, just before we took the islands, and before the wars, was 294,402 tons. Comparing that with last year's production of 740,987 tons we have an increase of only 152 per cent in over 30 years. Is it not fairer, for comparison purposes, to take the years before rather than after six years of wars? But this is not all the story. The mills used in Spanish times recovered only about half the sugar from the cane. Had the cane of the year 1895, just before the wars began, been milled by the same mills used in Java, Cuba, and elsewhere, thus practically doubling the sugar output, the increase to last year would have been only about 32 per cent in 35 years. In other words, in 35 years the Philippines increased their acreage in cane only enough to increase their total production by about 30 per cent to 40 per cent. During these same years Cuba increased her production 679 per cent. Senator Borah and others think the Philippines sprang at sugar production after the increase of tariff in 1922. Out of a total of 43,475 daily cane-ton capacity of modern mills in the islands in August, 1928 (latest figures available), 35,375, or 81 per cent, were actually in operation before 1922. Of this 35,375, only 1,800 tons were in operation up to and including 1913. Thus, roughly, during the war period, were financed and erected the modern mills, which accounts for perhaps 75 per cent of the total increase. During the war there was a great world shortage of sugar. Our Government encouraged, in fact urged, the Philippines to increase their sugar production. The quickest short cut to accomplish this was to introduce modern mills which, without increasing the cane production at that time, doubled the output of sugar merely by better milling. This sudden influx of modern mills was not only encouraged by the high war-time prices but by our Government itself. The same may be said of coconut oil mills. Will Congress now, when there is a world overproduction of sugar, by independence and duties, blast the very enterprises our Government urged largely for our own supply of sugar in times of stress? Senator HAWES. Would not that same argument apply to the farmers of the United States, who were asked to plant and replant, and feed all the armies of the world, as well as the American Armies? INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 383 Mr. SWITZER. Quite right, Senator. Senator HAWES. What is the difference between the attitude of the American Government toward the farmer in America and the farmer in the Philippines Mr. SWITZER. Then, Senator, do I understand we are to go back to basing our action with reference to the Philippines on what is best for us, or best for the Philippines? Senator HAwES. Not at all. I just aslied you if the policy of the United States Government did not apply the same way to the people in the United States as it did to the Filipinos Mr. SWITZER. I admitted that it did. Senator HAWES. Are they not now asking the curtailment of production on the part of the farmers? Mr. SWITZER. Right. But I am going on the theory, Senator-I may not have made it clear-that our first consideration in legislating for the Philippines is what is for the best interests of the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. That is the first consideration in legislating for Americans, too, is it not? M. SWITZER. That is true; but we have a special obligation over there. That is where, perhaps, Senator, you do not understand the feeling some of us have, where we can absolutely disassociate ourselves from any business we have ever had. So far as I am concerned, I am not in business at all. Senator HAWES. You have appeared, however, in opposition to Philippine independence before, have you not? Mr. SWITZER. Never. Senator HAWES. You are not the man I am thinking of, then. Mr. SWITZER. No, sir. Senator HAwEs. Didn't I -read a debate of yours, something to that effect? Mr. SWITZER. No, sir. Here is a gentleman right here who has known me for 30 years. Senator HAWES. Is this your first appearance in opposition to Philippine independence? Mr. SWITZER. I am not opposed to Philippine independence. Senator HAWES. You are in favor of it? Mr. SWITZER. I am in favor of Philippine independence. Senator HAWES. I see. All right. Mr. SWITZER. Fortunately, Senator, there are a good many men sitting around here-Filipinos-whom I have known for 30 years. They will bear me out in the statement that I have never appeared before any committee opposed to independence. Commissioner, am I not right? Commissioner GUEVARA. Yes. Senator HAWES. But all of them think you are wrong in your present position, no matter what they may have thought in the past. Mr. SWITZER. That may be true. I am not quarreling with their position at all. They are entitled to their views and I respect them for it. In two or three years the new modern mills will be milling all the available cane grown on lands heretofore devoted to cane. After 384 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS that the increase of sugar production must come from increased acreage to cane. That will be a slower process than one unfamiliar with the islands can readily understand. The main reason is that the Philippines are the land of the small farmer. The average cultivated farm in 1918 was 3 acres. These small farmers are slow to change from one crop to another, to go to new lands or increase their own cultivation. High-powered big capital never went into the Philippines to develop the country rapidly as in Cuba and elsewhere. Moreover, it never will, because of the land laws and the aversion of the people to sell their land. To-day the Philippines supply us with 10 per cent of our sugar requirements. Our annual increase of consumption amounts to 250,000 tons. After another year or so Philippine production will just about maintain its ratio of supplying our requirements. Philippine sugar about doubled its production merely by introducing modern mills and yet it increased its production only 152 per cent in 32 years. For 17 years it has had unlimited access to our highly protected market and yet supplies us with only 10 per cent of our requirements. Why all the alarm? Senator HAWES. That is the favorite argument, that the Philippines have reached the maximum of their production. Mr. SWITZER. Pardon me, Senator. I would not say that for a moment, because it is not true. Senator HAwIES. You do not believe that? Mr. SWITZER. I know it is not true. Senator HAWES. Is the speaker right when he said the production of sugar and other products can be enlarged by two or three times their present production Mr. SWITZER. Certainly, but it will take years to do it. Senator HAWES. But it can be done. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, you have been told a lot of things, but to make such a statement as that for the sake of making a case is very unwise. The Philippines have possibilities of much more production, but what we claim is that it will take years to do it. It has got to come slowly. It can not come fast. There is no way of making it come fast. Senator HAWES. But the fact is that it can come. Mr. SWITZER. Yes. Senator HAwES. Did you say twice, three times, or four times the production? Mr. SWITZER. I did not say. Senator HAWES. What would you say? Mr. SWITZER. It would be a mere guess. Senator HAWES. Well, guess. You have been guessing before. Give me your best guess. Would it be two or three or four times? Mr. SWITZER. I am not the only one who guesses. Senator HAWES. No. We all guess. The CHAIRMAN. Some of the people who have not been to the Philippines are more eager to guess than anyone else. Mr. SWITZER. Yes; they are the best guessers of all. Senator HAWES. What do you think about it? Can they double, treble, or quadruple the production, with money and machinery? Mr. SWITZER. Senator, I do not believe that in the lifetime of your grandchildren you will see the Philippines producing half of what Cuba produces to-day. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 385 Senator HAWES. I am going to ask you another question. Mr. SWITZER. Certainly. Ask any question you please. Senator HAWES. Thank you, sir. Do you think there is a potential possibility of doubling the crop, trebling the crop, or quadrupling the crop over there, with money and improved machinery? Mr. SWITZER. I should say that it could be done. Senator HAWES. Now, wait a minute-can it be doubled, trebled, or quadrupled? What would you say? The CHAIRMAN. And give the date, please, when that will take place. Mr. SWITZER. One is about as easy as the other. Well, Senator, you know, as I do, how slow the development is bound to be there from now on, inasmuch as the increase from now on must come from increase of acreage, not milling. Senator HAWES. Right. Mr. SWITZER. I should say that they are producing to-day about 740,000 tons. Possibly your grandchildren will see four times that much sugar produced in the Philippines, but they will have to live to a ripe old age. Senator HAwEs. My grandchildren will see four times the amount? Mr. SWITZER. Possibly your great grandchildren. Senator HAWEs. But there is the potential possibility of quadrupling the entire supply of the agricultural products of the Philippines. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, that is right, and you will be so glad to get that sugar in about ten or fifteen years from now and you will be wondering why you have been sitting here in this committee for the last two months wrangling over a question of whether you want to give the Philippines independence so that you can tax the life out of the sugar of the Philippines. Senator HAWES. No. I will leave that question to the Congress, under my grandchildren, to decide for me. Mr. SWITZER. Good, Senator. I am glad to hear you say that. Senator HAwES. With the thought that the Congress will act wisely at that particular time. Mr. SWITZER. You and I are almost agreed. Senator HAWES. Very nearly. Mr. SWITZER. Now, Senator, I am going to come to what is in the back of your head, I am sure. Senator HAWES. You have looked forward to the time of my grandchildren, and now you are looking to the back of my head. Mr. SWITZER. I am talking about your head, not theirs. Does Philippine sugar depress our market? Behind our tariff wall domestic sugar, Hawaiian, Porto Rican, and Philippine sugars all have available a sure market for 3,000,000 tons more than their combined production. Why should any of them, therefore, cut prices On the other hand Cuba with part of our tariff against her, after selling us 3,000,000 tons annually, still has a surplus of 2,000,000 tons more than our market can consume. That 2,000,000 tons must find a world market at world prices. It seeks the market of lowest price resistance power, wherever that may be. To the extent of the preferential our market is the best in the world for 92109-30 —PT 4-4 386 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Cuban sugar. Hence she is constantly hammering at our market. It is Cuba s preferential and the world price pressure connected with that 2,000,000 tons of Cuban surplus trying to nose into our market that makes the trouble, not Philippine sugar at all. Does Philippine sugar displace domestic sugar? Senator, if I can prove here that Philippine sugar does not displace domestic sugar, I do not see where domestic sugar has a leg to stand on. That is what I shall try to do. For the purposes of this argument we assume that our tariff adequately covers the difference in the cost of sugar production between Cuba and the United States. If it does not, it is no fault of Philippine sugar nor would the shutting out of Philippine sugar be the remedy. Behind our tariff wall, therefore, every ton of domestic, Porto Rican, Hawaiian, and Philippine sugar is assured a market. Our market is better for them than it is for Cuba and the rest of the world by the extent the tariff more than covers the difference in cost of production. No one of these four suppliers will displace the other until all together they supply our entire requirements. To-day they fall 3,000,000 tons short of supplying our requirements. Stated differently, any increased production of sugar by any one of those behind the tariff wall does not displace any other sugar behind that wall until their total production reaches our total consumption. Meanwhile, until their total production reaches our total consumption, any increased production by any of those behind our tariff wall merely displaces the weakest competitor, which naturally is Cuba, which is outside the wall, and has the greater handicapnamely the tariff, hence the least power of resistance. Cuban and not domestic sugar is displaced. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in my extended brief I give exhibits which I think, out of the mouths of our opponents, prove conclusively what I have just said. Senator HAWES. When you say "opponents" what do you mean? Mr. SWITZER. I mean those who are trying to destroy the industries of the Philippine Islands. Senator HAWES. Who are those people? Mr. SWITZER. The sugar people are the first ones and the main ones. Senator HAWES. They have not appeared here yet. Mr. SWITZER. Oh, but, Senator, they are working mighty hard behind the curtains. Senator HAWES. How do you know that? Mr. SWITZER. Because we can get echoes from the floor of Congress. We know what they said last year they were going to do. Senator HArES. You mean the sugar people in Louisiana and the beet people in the beet States? Is that whom you have reference to? Mr. SWITZER. I mean the sugar interests are absolutely opposed to Philippine sugar, and they are working in and out of Congress. That is the statement I wish to make, Senator. Senator HAWES. I think that is a correct statement, for the same reason that your organization is working the other way. Mr. SWITZER. Well, Senator, there is a big difference. Senator HAWES. I do not see it. Mr. SWITZER. The big difference is that --- INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 387 Senator HAWES. I do not see any difference in selfishness at all. One is just as selfish as the other. One is just as mercenary as the other. One is just as cold-blooded as the other. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, I do not give a rap, so far as my interests are concerned, whether you give the Philippines independence or whether you do not give them independence. You can not say that I am appearing here for selfish purposes. The chances are I would be better off, so far as my little investment is concerned-which means nothing-under independence than as it is to-day. But I have what I hope is a higher interest in the matter, and I do not want to discuss the question on any other basis except that. I am arguing this sugar question, because that is the main point. That is the great push back of the demand from the United States end for independence. Senator HAWES. Then, can you draw a distinction that I can understand, between the man who appears here opposing the aspirations of these people because he sells $15,000,000 worth of cotton goodsMr. SWITZER. No, Senator. Senator HAWES. Wait a minute-and the man who raises sugarcane and beets in this country, who says that he is in favor of it for just the opposite reason? Is there any difference between the two? Mr. SWITZER. No. I have no quarrel with you at all about that Senator. Senator HAWES. They are just the same. Mr. SWITZER. Exactly the same, Senator, and I have no more sympathy with one than the other. Senator HAWES. Then we are agreed? Mr. SWITZER. We are absolutely agreed. What is to be our future source of supply of sugar? According to Willett & Gray, the accepted authority on sugar, our average yearly increase in total consumption for 107 years is 5.111 per cent. We used an increase of only 3.5, and yet 30 years hence we shall be consuming over 15,000,000 tons annually. Who will supply that? Porto Rican and Hawaiian sugar admittedly are near their limit of production. However, let us figure on an increase of 25 per cent for them. In the past 20 years domestic sugar has increased 40 per cent, but to be liberal let us suppose it increases 200 per cent in 30 years. We figure Philippine sugar out of it, due to independence. What is the picture, then? Cuba will be supplying 11,000,000 out of our 15,000,000 tons, or 71 per cent of our total requirements. Do we want to jump into that lion's mouth by eliminating Philippine sugar? Bearing in mind that Porto Rico and Hawaii are about the limit of their production, and that the increase of domestic sugar in the past 20 years is only 12 per cent of our increased consumption, and bearing in mind that domestic sugar to-day supplies us only 17/2 per cent of our requirements, by what moral or any other right does domestic sugar presume to dictate to the American people what shall be the source of the 82/2 per cent of our sugar requirements it can not supply us? The question arises if Philippine sugar does not injure domestic sugar, why does domestic sugar oppose Philippine sugar? Domestic sugar, above all, wants a higher duty. Cuban sugar wants Philip 388 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS pine sugar eliminated because it believes there will be a great increase of Philippine sugar in this market. Don't forget that. Cuba is not worried about Philippine sugar displacing United States sugar. Cuba is worrying about it displacing Cuban sugar, and Cuban sugar only. My exhibits will show that. Moreover, the higher the duty the more inducement to increased production in the Philippines. Cuba has no objection to an increase of duty except for the fear of encouraging increasing Philippine production. In fact, with her preferential, the higher the full duty rate the better protected Cuba is against world competition. With Philippine sugar out of the way Cuba and domestic sugar could reach an agreement in five minutes. (See Exhibit D.) What were the terms? Cuba withdraws her opposition to an increase of the tariff on the condition that Philippine sugar is first eliminated. That brings domestic sugar into the fight against Philippine sugar even though not in the least injured by Philippine sugar. In other words, domestic sugar will help cut Philippine sugar's throat in order to induce Cuban sugar's withdrawal of powerful influence against an increased tariff. It is a case of collusion between Cuban and domestic sugar against Philippine sugar. Senator, I am giving you sufficient exhibits to prove all that. Senator HAWES. Of course, that is true. They are voting to put a tariff on aluminum downstairs, and tomatoes, and horseradish, and everything on the same theory. Mr. SWITZER. But what I do not understand is why Cuba is such a favorite. Why should domestic sugar sacrifice Philippine sugar in order to pull Cuban chestnuts out of the fire? Senator HAWES. If you were familiar with the situation downstairs, you would not find them voting that way. They are voting for a higher duty in all the domestic producing States in America to shut out Cuban sugar here. Mr. SWITZER. You will not shut out Cuban sugar if you raise the tariff. You are just helping Cuban sugar. You are not hurting Cuban sugar by raising the tariff. Senator HAWES. You are the first man I have heard advance any argument of that kind. Mr. SWITZER. All right, Senator. Here is my extended argument right here. As a matter of fact, would you like to have me show vou an exhibit, where Cuba itself proposed that the tariff be raised to 3 cents? Senator HAWES. No. I want to find out what your position is on independence, after a while. Mr. SWITZER. I am coming to that, Senator. Early independence means an economic collapse in the Philippines carrying with it a lowering of social standards and possibly political unrest. Continuous agitation for independence has caused such uncertainty as to retard the development of the islands. Even sugar, one of the best established industries, has in 30 years increased only 152 per cent, against Hawaii, 303 per cent; Cuba, 679 per cent; Porto Rico, 881 per cent; and Formosa, 1,219 per cent. The Filipino's purchasing power per capita is only $11, against Cuba's $59 and Porto Rico's $65. Her per capita expenditure for elementary and secondary schools is only $1. Her per capita annual income is from INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 389 $33 to $38. Shall we by early independence rock that frail, already overloaded boat? We have stressed political and social progress, raised standards of living, but have not provided the necessary economic basis to support the superstructure. We raised wages and standards of living much above those of competing countries, but they are maintained solely because 60 per,cent of their total exports have free access to our highly protected markets and the other countries have not. That weakened them in that they are now no longer inured to world competition. If we were to stop free entry of their products into our market now, after raising their standards of living and before they really get on their feet, it were better we had never stayed in the islands at all as from the beginning they would have kept down their standards of living to where they could produce at costs which would enable them to compete in world markets. The total insular revenues to-day are only $48,000,000. Subject their shipments here to our present duty and they will at once receive over $50,000,000 less than they do to-day and that reflected in their purchasing power brings it down to $6.80 per capita, or where it was 20 years ago. Let them receive $50 per ton for sugar and $44 per ton for oil less than they do to-day, and other products accordingly, then in order to find new markets wages must go down, profits must go down, incomes and revenues must go down. The collapse is on. It is estimated the insular revenues will drop 40 per cent to 50 per cent. This would happen just when the expenses resulting from setting up a new and independent government must of necessity have gone up. Taxes are already as high as the islands should bear. Following the line of least resistance, much against their will, they must ~curtail activities all along the line, must curtail the much-needed public health service, public improvements, transportation, and the heroic struggle for education. The per capita expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools is now only $1, far the lowest of all our insular possessions, and yet that represents 251/2 per cent of:all their insular, provincial, and municipal expenditures. Let independence cut their revenues 40 per cent to 50 per cent and they can not have even the $1 per capita for education. Millions of helpless children thus will be condemned to the degradation of illiteracy. Near-by independence means they would have " to live as the people in that part of the world live;" in other words, go back 20 or more years. Whoever votes to report out of this committee a near-by independence bill must do so against the warning that he is voting to put millions of dollars into the pockets of Cuban sugar millionaires and snatching the school books out of the hands of millions of Filipino children. Senator HAWES. What do you mean bv " near-by independence " Mr. SWITZER. I mean short of 30 years. Senator HAWES. Do you favor it at the end of 30 years Mr. SWITZER. Senator, I am coming to that. Senator HAWES. I ask you the question. Mr. SWITZER. Leave it to the people 30 years hence, as to what they are going to do. Senator HAWES. Can you answer this question? Do you favor Philippine independence? Mr. SWITZER. Yes. 390 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAwEs. Do you favor it now? Mr. SWITZER. No. Senator HAWES. In five years? Mr. SWITZER. NO. Senator HAWES. In 10 years? Mr. SWITZER. No. Senator HAWES. In 20 years? Mr. SWITZER. No. Senator HAWES. In 30 years? Mr. SWITZER. Yes. Does that answer your question, Senator? Senator HAWES. I got it finally. Mr. SWITZER. Every measure before Congress providing for a change in the status of the Philippines contains unmistakable evidence that taxation of Philippine products is the main purpose. With the fervor of a liberator witnesses before this committee pled for Philippine independence but Senator Johnson caught them with a tax bill in their pocket. Are we not just a little too apparent and keen about that? We are amazed at this rush for the termination of reciprocal free trade and chagrined that Cuba's sugar millionaires are to continue enjoying a preferential on their three to four million tons coming here but not even a suggestion is forthcoming of a God-bless-you-and-good-by preferential for a single ton of sugar of the small fellows of the Philippines. Senator HAWES. Hold on just a minute. Have you read Senator Vandenberg's bill? Mr. SWITZER. Yes; I have read it, Senator. I am coming to that. Senator HAWES. Wait a minute. You state now that there is no single suggestion. What about his bill, if you have read it? Mr. SWITZER. That bill means that he might as well have independence at the end of two years. Senator HAWES. It does not say that. Mr. SWITZER. I know it does not say that, but that is what it will work out to be. Senator HAWES. That is your opinion about it? Mr. SWITZER. Yes. Senator HAWES. Do you really understand what it means-that there is a period of readjustment? Mr. SWITZER. Yes; I understand that. Senator HAWES. And then a gradual reduction over a period of years-first, 25 per cent; then 50 per cent; then 75; and so on, before it reaches 100 per cent. Do you understand that? Mr. SWITZER. Yes. Senator HAWES. Then, there has been some practical suggestion made by this committee, and by a member of the committee. so that this should not happen rapidly and quickly. Mr. SWITZER. But is there any suggestion about any preferential after it is all over but the Cuban shouting? Senator HAwEs. The only suggestion is that Congress at that time-the Senate and the House of Representatives and the President of the United States-will decide at that period what the best thing is to do. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, if I were to judge what Congress would do then by the anxiety with which they are going at it now to get the Philippines in a position where they can tax them, I can well im INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 391 agine that it will be a good many generations before the Philippines will have anything like a fair chance at this market, once they get their independence. Senator HAWES. In other words, you can guess with absolute accuracy about what will happen in the Philippines, but you are very uncertain as to what would happen in your own country. Mr. SWITZER. I think, perhaps, Senator, when we judge the future, if you will pardon me, by what I see is the apparent attitude in Congress to-day-at least, a great many in Congress would like very much to have a relationship between the United States and the Philippines so that we coqld tax them, and if they are so keen about that now, they might be just as keen 30 years from now. Senator HAWES. You are willing to gamble, then, on a guess as to what will happen 30 years from now in the Philippines, and what Congress will do 30 years from now? Mr. SWITZER. I would rather gamble on what is going to happen then, when they know more about it, than to have it happen now, because a good deal will happen between now and then that will change the minds of many people who are now in favor of independence forthe sake of taxing them. They will be very glad to get a lot of these products. I am speaking now only from the point of view of those who are opposing this because of any competition. I do not give a rap about that part of it myself. It does not make any difference to me. Senator HAWES. That is all you have been talking about. Mr. SWITZER. I am talking about it because those who are advocating independence are advocating it on account of these economic reasons. I am trying to answer them. I do not give a rap about it. I think it is a mighty poor basis, Senator, to start with, in determining what we shall do with the Philippines. I do not like it at all. Senator HAWES. Then, you think that the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce is wrong, too, in putting it on that basis? Mr. SWITZER. Senator, I know enough about those men to know that they are just as sincere in opposing near-by independence as if they did not have a dollar in the Philippines. Senator HAwES. But you do not think the farmers and union labor are sincere. Mr. SWITZER. Yes; I do. I have not said anything of the kind. I have not said that they are not sincere. Senator HAWES. I know you have not said it, but where do you get the difference between the two? They are both acting from selfish motives. Mr. SWITZER. The difference is this, Senator. First of all, I think we have a higher obligation to the Filipino people than most of you people realize. I went there in the first military expedition in 1898. I know what the situation was in the Spanish days. I have a very warm spot in my heart for these people. Senator HAWES. I know, but that has not anything to do with — Mr. SWITZER. Pardon me. Senator HAwES. Wait a minute. Let us get back. That has not anything to do with the selfish motive. You are very free to attribute a selfish motive to union labor, for instance. Mr. SWITZER. I am not blaming union labor. 392 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. You are not blaming them? Mr. SWITZER. No; I am not blaming them. Senator HAWES. Do you think they are all right, then, in opposing 68,000 Filipinos coming into this country? Mr. SWITZER. I think they have a complaint coming; yes. Senator HAWES. Don't you think the beet-sugar people have? Mr. SWITZER. Who? Senator HAWES. The beet-sugar people. Mr. SWITZER. Not a particle. Senator HAwES. Or the cane-sugar people? Mr. SWITZER. Not a particle. Senator HAWES. Not a bit? Mr. SWITZER. NO, sir; not a particle. Senator HAWES. All right. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Switzer, is there not this difference between the attitude of those Americans who are opposing the granting of immediate independence and those Americans who are in favor of it, that while most of both those two classes are actuated by selfish reasons, apart from those selfish reasons there comes a feeling and a sincere belief based on personal knowledge, such as your own knowledge based on more than 30 years of intimate connection with the Philippines, and having lived there for many years, that it would be bad for the Philippine people themselves to secure immediate and complete independence? Mr. SWITZER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Based on your own knowledge of them and their economic surroundings, and their political, social, and educational conditions that go with it. Mr. SWITZER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Whereas, on the part of most Americans who are arguing in favor of independence, whether for selfish reasons or not, there is an ignorance of local conditions due to the fact that they have not lived there. Mr. SWITZER. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. They may have been there for two or three days, or they may not have been there at all. Most of them who have appeared before us have never been there. Mr. SWITZER. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not possible that that is the cause of the difference in their viewpoint, when you wipe out any selfish interest? Mr. SWITZER. That is partly correct. The distinguished Senator from Michigan thinks the so-called Weeks plan did not " permit this Philippine Commonwealth a fair opportunity to fit itself during the probationary period into the protected markets of the world." The Weeks plan provided for 25 years and the Vandenberg plan has it all over after the second year. It certainly is all over after four years. We respectfully submit the following plan: That the American Government, by the most solemn act possible, pledge on its honor to maintain for 30 years its sovereignty over the Philippines and reciprocal free trade with them, leaving the determination of our ultimate relations with the islands to the wisdom and fairness of the American people 30 years from now. We do not believe in tying INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 393 the hands of our people as to what they shall do 30 years hence under conditions we can not to-day foresee. Meanwhile, by stages, we could advance the Filipino people nearer and nearer to complete self-government. Senator HAWES. What do you mean by leading them to a greater degree of self-government? What greater degree of self-govern. ment could they have than they have now Mr. SWITZER. They do not hold all the higher offices there yet. Senator HAWES. What offices do they not hold? Mr. SWITZER. There is the Governor General; there is the vice governor; there is the auditor; there is a majority of the supreme court; and quite a few judges of the court of first instance. Senator HAWES. What extension do you propose that they be given? They have everything now but the governor, lieutenant governor, part of the supreme court, and the auditor. Mr. SWITZER. And some of the judges of the court of the first instance. Senator HAWES. Yes. Mr. SWITZER. I should say the next step might be to give them the vice governor. Senator HAWES. How about the judges? Mr. SWITZER. Give them some more of the judges. Senator HAWES. Would you give them the auditor? Mr. SWITZER. Not yet. Senator HAWES. So, then, you do think there are some things that Congress ought to do now? Mr. SWITZER. I certainly do. Senator HAWES. One is to give them more self-government, and the other is to fix a definite period of determination. Mr. SWITZER. I do not say a definite period of determination. In my extended brief I bring this outSenator HAWES. I have not read your brief. Mr. SWITZER. I know you have not. I am trying to fill in the breaks here. I think that we ought to do away with this paralyzing uncertainty. Senator HAWES. Yes. Mr. SWITZER. As far as I am concerned, if we must go ahead with the uncertainty that prevails there to-day, and has for some years, so far as I am personally concerned, give them their independence, and give it to them to-morrow. Senator HAWES. You do think that we ought to take some congressional action? Mr. SWITZER. I certainly think that you ought to do away with this uncertainty. The sugar people have been agitating for independence over there, and advertising the uncertainty of that condition over there, and making it so that nobody wanted to go ahead and develop the country. If I were not already imposing on this committee's time, I should like to read you some things to show you how, back quite a ways, these sugar people have insidiously advertised the uncertainty of the Philippines, just to paralyze the development of that country. If the Senator would like it, I will read it. To unconditionally promise independence at the end of 30 years or any other definite period is a serious mistake. It would have a 394 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS demoralizing effect on any people to have independence automatically forthcoming at a certain time without their doing anything to earn it. Our 30-year plan cuts the Gordian knot and gives the Filipinos other issues besides independence. It prevents the Cuban and domestic sugar interests from agitating for Philippine independence with the resulting economic stagnation. Up to now in this Philippine Government enterprise while the personnel is almost entirely Filipino we must not forget that the manager and a few key assistants are still Americans. Under our sovereignty for the first time in history the Filipinos even assisted in their government. Roughly, 25 years of limited experience! Compare that with our own AngloSaxon centuries of training in self-government. Preparedness for self-government comes by years of education and actual experience. Were it not better that the Filipinos experience another period under a little more increased autonomy and thus bring themselves perhaps more slowly but more securely to their goal? As Senator Vandenberg told the Senate " the surest plan in the long run will be the speediest." Meanwhile, let them grow stronger economically that they may more easily stand the additional financial strain attending a new and independent government. Whether a committing promise of ultimate independence was ever made or not, we shall, in any case, at least have lived up to the spirit and intent of the American people to prepare the Filipinos for self-government. No promise of independence expressed, implied, or imagined, calls on us to go faster and further than this, and, in fact, our full duty to the real welfare of the Filipino people calls for a halt here. Now, what will be the advantages socially and economically of a 30-year certainty of continuance of American sovereignty with reciprocal free trade? To summarize our extended brief on this and several other points and keep within the bounds to which this committee may want to listen is most difficult. We hope the extended brief will be read. The first question is: Will the Philippines be any better able 30 years hence than to-day to stand independence and no free trade with us? Most emphatically, yes. Let us take our own country. Over a considerable period of protection in our home market we were able to build up strong industries. These strong industries were able to increase our annual exports in 15 years from 1913, the last year before the Great War, to 1928 by $2,644,000,000, or 106 per cent, in the face of world competition. Weak industries could not have done that. The American market is, in reality, the home market for the Philippines. During those same 15 years, the Philippines increased their total exports 224 per cent, but increased their exports to the protected or American market 600 per cent, and to the unprotected markets of the world only 27 per cent. This shows, clearly, how dependent they are as yet on our market. In fact, without it, their industries can not grow strong as did our own American industries. Thus, while the strong industries of the United States could increase their exports to the world in general by' 106 per cent, the as yet feeble industries of the Philippines increased their exports to the world other than to the United States only 27 per cent. Will the advocates of Philippine independence claim, in the fact of that, that we have INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 395 -brought the Philippines far enough along the road of economic progress to kick them out to shift for themselves That would be launching a new nation crippled from the start. Immediately after the Great War, it was generally believed that America could not even hold her own in the markets of the world against the products of warimpoverished cheap labor of Europe. But our industries, meanwhile having grown strong at home, not only withstood Europe's cheap labor, but even outdistanced it in the markets of the world, and raised wages while doing so. Give the Philippines a chance, and 30 years hence they also can take care of themselves. Rather than condemn these people to sink back to the level of other people of the Orient, let us give them a chance to profit by their greater education so that Iby more intelligent management, greater efficiency, they can compete with the lower standard wages of other countries without materially lowering their own standards. That is what we ourselves have done in the past 15 years. Let us not by premature independence come dangerously near scrapping their splendid start in education, but, instead, give it time to come to fruition and then we shall have done what we set out to do for these people. That is the high-minded way we ought to wind up a high-minded undertaking. How much better it will look in history, how much easier it will rest on our own con-science to terminate our stewardship 30 years hence not with a paralyzing blow, as if it were done to-day, but with only a slight shock, if any, because intelligence and greater efficiency could cope successfully with lower standards. We wish to put special emphasis,on that point. Not only is this 30-year period essential for industries to grow strong but what is almost equally important is the warning of what is to happen long enough in advance so that readjustment may be,done orderly and not turn into a rout. Forewarned, forearmed! They will have time to develop new markets and even new industries such as mining, rubber, pineapples, coffee, tea, and many other tropical products. Moreover, given the 30-year plan, if they do not adjust themselves accordingly they have only themselves to blame. It lets us out with clean hands. By this 30-year plan the economic shock from the termination of:free trade will be reduced to the minimum, Government revenues will suffer less, the whole social status will suffer less. We shall be asked why 30 years and not 15 or 20. For the same reason, except more so, that our industries are far better able to-day to meet world competition than they were 30 or 50 years ago. Moreover, the Orient moves slower than the Occident. If we have not proven that near-by independence is harmful to the best interests of the Filipino people, then give them complete and immediate independence. We took the Philippines from Spain, held them in the beginning against the will of the Filipino people, and administered them for 32 years, avowedly for their social, economic, and political upbuilding; in short, for their welfare and not our gain. Now, when we are barely started on that self-imposed task, we are asked to throw down our tools and walk off the job because some think we are losing money on the contract. Stripped of all pretense, all camouflage, the cold facts are that that is what we are asked to do, and that is the 396 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS main reason. After all our 30 years of profession of high-minded altruism toward them, can we do this and again look the Filipinos in the face? Already considerable portions of mankind look on us as the money-bags of the world." Of course that is grievously unfair but too much has been said already before committees of Congress and on the floor of both Houses to leave the slightest doubt that the pressure for Philippine independence to-day is for economic reasons. The press of the country thinks so. Soon the world will think so. Under these circumstances shall we, by near-by independence, deliberately put in our critics' hands conclusive proof of their charge? Is an act of Congress, with such a parentage, representative of the heart of this Nation, which in the past nine years has remitted on its foreign loans, principal and interest, about five billion dollars? Is such an act representative of the generous heart of the American people who in the past nine years, since 1921, have given to philanthropy almost nineteen billion dollars? Is such an act representative of the world-wide sympathies of the American people who in the past nine years have given to the relief and upbuilding of foreign people $1,600,000,000? The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with Senator Vandenberg's bill? Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You know its general outline, namely, the securing of tariff autonomy. Mr. SWITZER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And the shutting of the doors to free trade by a gradual process. Mr. SWITZER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose that process, instead of taking place in 10 years, as suggested in his bill, were to be spread, in the same ratio, over a period of 30 years. Mr. SWITZER. It would be much better. Senator HAwEs. How about 40 years? Would that be still better? Mr. SWITZER. I should say it would be better still, but I think they could pull out in 30 years. The CHAIRMAN. What I want to get your opinion on, Mr. Switzer, is whether it would be, in your opinion, better for the Philippines to have a gradual tightening of the belt which would certainly come about as the free trade door was closed with this country, so that a year or two before the end of the 30-year period they might know exactly what it was like to have no free trade, and to be like a foreign nation; or whether it would be better to declare, so far as Congress is able to declare, that for 30 years the free trade relations and the present sovereignty of the United States should be maintained, and at the end of that time the question might be settled one way or the other. In other words, my question gets down to this: Which, in your opinion, would be best for the Philippine Islands, the gradual closing of the door to free trade over a period of 30 years, or the definite, sudden closing of it at the end of 30 years? Mr. SWITZER. I think the latter would be better, Mr. Chairman, for this reason. You have the benefit, during these 30 years, of the prosperity arising from the full benefit of this market. During that INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 397 time, while they are still enjoying that prosperity, they can adjust themselves, in a way, to meet the new condition 30 years hence, say. In other words, they will know, during this period, that if they increase the production of those articles that now pay a duty coming into the United States, they are playing with fire. They will not increase those. On the other hand, they will be turning to the production of other products, such as coffee, rubber, pineapples, and all these other things, and they will have worked themselves up to a position, 30 years from now, where they can take care of themselves, and do it very much better, the same way we have done in this country. We have protected our home market for our home industries. They have grown strong. They have gotten more efficient, and if there was ever a time when our home industries were put to a test, it has been since the Great War, with the impoverished conditions in Europe, and, naturally, the low wages. We withstood that, and withstood it well. Mr. CHAIRMAN. There is one point I should like, above all, to emphasize right at this time, and that is this. I have the very highest regard for the Filipinos' effort at education. I think they deserve a great deal of credit for that. They have made all kinds of sacrifices for it. They are still making sacrifices for that. Now, if we let them continue over a period of years, so that they can gradually make that education practical and so that they can cash in, in a sense, on their education, they will be in an infinitely better position to compete with low-standard peoples. It will be intelligence and better management against low standards of living. I say that can succeed, because it has succeeded in our own country. We are competing with Europe to-day, and we have raised wages. Now, is it not infinitely better that we give the Filipino people a chance, as I say, to cash in on the education they are getting, so that at the end of 30 years we do not have to partly scrap that? They can profit by it. They do not need to lower their standard of living, and yet they can compete. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Switzer, you are here speaking for yourself alone? Mr. SWITZER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You are not representing anybody else? Mr. SWITZER. I am absolutely on my own. The CHAIRMAN. You spoke once or twice of " our " 30-year plan. What did you mean? Mr. SWITZER. That is the editorial " we." The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to Mr. Orth's 30-year plan? Mr. SWITZER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Or to anybody else's? Mr. SwITZER. Not at all. The CHAIRMAN. Do yOU believe that there is any reason at present why foreign capital should not go into the Philippine Islands Once or twice to-day one of the members of the committee said that foreign capital can not go in. Mr. SWITZER. It can go in if it wants to. The CHAIRMAN. What did he mean by saying it can not go in? Mr. SWITZER. I do not know. 398 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing in the law to keep foreign capital out, is there? Mr. SWITZER. Not a thing in the world. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Spanish capital going into the islands to-day? Mr. SWITZER. Not a bit. The CHAIRMAN. There is no foreign capital going in there? Mr. SWITZER. Not so far as I know. The CIAIRMAN. Is there any American Capital going in there? Mr. SWITZER. I do not think there is any American capital. The only one I know of is the Manila Electric Co. They have enlarged their plant. The CHAIRMAN. If the King bill were to pass, would it encourage foreign capital to come in? Mr. SWITZER. Well, Senator, there would not be any foreign capital coming in there. The CHAIRMAN. If we were to decide that the question of independence was not to be determined for 30 years, in accordance with your plan, but that there was to be granted a greater measure of selfgovernment than they have to-day would American capital flow in in any volume? Mr. SWITZER. It would flow in, yes. There would not be a tremendous development. The reason is this, Senator: That is primarily an agricultural country. You are never going to develop that country rapidly along any agricultural line, because, first of all, there is the law against the holding of large areas of land. In addition to that, the Filipino people, I think quite wisely, have an aversion to selling their land and letting it accumulate in fewer hands-in large areas. When you have the farms of a country small, as they are over there, you are never going to get rapid development. It is going to be very slow; and the only reason why sugar, apparently, increased so much in the last few years is because during the war the United States wanted more sugar, and wanted it badly, and the Government encouraged money to erect modern sugar mills in the islands because that was the short cut and the quick way to get an additional amount of sugar, because they could get twice the amount of sugar out of the cane that they were getting before by putting in modern mills. That is finished. From now on the only increase in sugar will be from the increased acreage, and that is bound to be very, very slow. The CHAIRMAN. Then you think that there is not any likelihood of a large amount of capital pouring into the islands in case we postpone the decision for 30 years? Mr. SWITZER. No. The CHAIRMAN. And thereby inflating business so that there would be additional suffering at the end of 30 years? Mr. SWITZER. No; I do not think so. Moreover, I think there would be another great advantage-and I like to think of it this way. I believe that most of the development over there would be by Filipinos and not by foreigners, because that is their home. The CHAIRMAN. How many Americans do you know who have lived in the islands for more than a few weeks? Mr. SWITZER. I know a great many, Senator; having lived there for 21 years, I naturally know a great many. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 399 The CHAIRMAN. How many Americans that you know, who have been there for more than a few days, believe that it would be for the best interests of the Philippine Islands to grant them immediate independence? Mr. SWITZER. Not one. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. You speak of your 30-year plan. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that legislation should be enacted by Congress providing that at the end of 30 years something should take place? Mr. SWITZER. No, Senator. Let me explain. At the present time, and for some years past, there has been a great deal of agitation over there for independence, at that end and at this end. That created such an uncertainty that nobody wanted to go there at all, and it has retarded development. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. How could you avoid that? Mr. SWITZER. I am just coming to that, Senator, if you will permit me. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. I mean, with any legislation we could enact, how could you avoid that? Mr. SWITZER. I am just coming to that. In order to stop thatand if you can not stop that, give them their independence, for God's sake, and get it over with. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. That is just what I am getting at. Mr. SWITZER. You can stop it by what I suggest. If Congress solemnly declares that we are going to stay there for 30 years — Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. Congress can not solemnly declare that. Mr. SwrrzER. Wait a minute, if you please, Senator. If Congress solemnly declares — Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. Congress can not do that under our system of government. One Congress can not bind another. This Congress can not go longer than two years. Then another Congress comes in and this Congress can not bind the next Congress. Mr. SWITZER. I know what you are talking about, Senator, but let me finish. I know that perfectly well. If Congress, by solemn declaration, says that we are going to continue over there for 30 yearsSenator ROBINSON of Indiana. How can it do that? The point I am getting at is that Congress can not do that. Mr. SWITZER. Senator, let me finish my statement. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. That is your statement. Mr. SWITZER. No; it is not. You do not let me finish it. I say, if Congress makes the declaration that we will stay there for 30 years, and will continue free trade for 30 years, and capital comes there, more particularly if Filipino capital invests there on that basis and on that promise, no self-respecting Congress will ever change it. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. You do not know Congress. [Laughter.] Mr. SWITZER. Of course, Senator, you can say that. I am rather precluded from saying anything like that. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. I am perfectly sincere in my inquiry. What I am trying to get at is this. I see your point very 400 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS well, indeed, but I am wondering how you can possibly avoid the uncertainty, under our system of government. Mr. SWITZER. You can not legally, Senator. That I know perfectly well. But you can morally. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. You do not want us to do something illegal. The CHAIRMAN. What form of legislation would you suggest, Mr. Switzer-a joint resolution? Mr. SWITZER. I should think so. The CHAIRMAN. Declaring it to be the sense of Congress that the best interests of the Philippines would be served if no change was made in their political or industrial or tariff relations for 30 years? Mr. SWITZER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. At the same time, what additional measure of autonomy would you grant them, and how soon? Mr. SWITZER. Well, I should say that you might give them their vice governor in the very near future, and you could even go further than that, as soon as it seems advisable to do so. That is a detail. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Switzer, I want to go back, if I may, to the question I asked you a few minutes ago about the Americans in the Philippines. Very few members of this committee have ever been to the Philippines. That is our misfortune. Some of us have been prevented from going by the action of friends of independence on the floor of Congress, who have prevented the bill being passed which would have required members of this Committee to go to the Philippines every two years in order to hold hearings and get familiar with the situation. Of those on this committee who have been there, I do not think anyone has stayed more than a month, or perhaps more than five or six weeks. There has been a very great deal of opposition to the resolution which I have introduced, regarding a conference in the Philippines in September. I confess that if the conference were to meet only for a few days, perhaps it could not accomplish a great deal. In order to look at the thing clearly, we must rely on the views of people who do know, and who have been there, and who are thoroughly familiar with the situation. I want to ask you again whether, in your wide acquaintance, covering a period, now, of more than 30 years, you can not recall at least some Americans who have lived there and who know the Philippines, who believe that their desire for immediate independence is wise and should be granted. Mr. SWITZER. Well, Senator, I have met some. In my extended brief here I say that I do not believe that over 1 per cent of those who have lived there are in favor of immediate independence. I have known some; yes; but they are so few that you can practically say that opinion among Americans who have resided there is unanimous against it. Do not misunderstand me, though, Mr. Chairman. I do not mean to say that all these people are opposed to independence. I mean near-by independence. The CHAIRMAN. That is, you define that as anything less than 30 years. Mr. SWITZER. Approximately; yes. The CHAIRMAN. I suppose it might fairly be claimed by those who are in favor of immediate independence that the Americans INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 401 who are opposed to it are animated by what may be called selfish reasons. There is no doubt that they would claim that. Mr. SWITZER. Yes. But how about the much greater number of Americans opposed to near-by independence who never had a dollar at stake there? The CHAIRMAN. I suppose that some of the Americans who are opposed to it naturally feel that it would ruin their business, and they are opposed to it on those grounds. But surely there must be a good many of our fellow countrymen who have lived there, who have acquired a fondness for the islands and the people. Is not that so? Mr. SWITZER. Mr. Chairman, I presume that three-fourths of the Americans whom I know-oh, more than that-who have lived in the islands for any length of time, have not now nor ever did have a dollar at stake in the Philippine Islands. No one can say they are selfish in opposing near-by independence. The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, what is the basis of their views in opposition to immediate independence? Mr. SWITZER. The basis of their opposition to immediate independence is the same as I tried to express here. We do not believe that immediate or near-by independence is the best thing for the Philippine people. If I thought it was, Senator, I would say, "Give them independence to-morrow." I do not begrudge it to them. The CHAIRMAN. How many of these Americans may be said to be sincerely fond of the Philippines and the Filipino people? Mr. SWITZER. Any American who was ever successful there. The CHAIRMAN. Then, those who are bitter against the Filipino people are those who have not succeeded in making good out there. Mr. SWITZER. I should say that is about it. The CHAIRMAN. How large a percentage of the people that you know come in that class? Mr. SWITZER. I do not know very many. The CHAIRMAN. Then, most of the people that you know are fond of the Filipino people, is that right? Mr. SWITZER. All my friends are. The CHAIRMAN. And yet they do not believe in immediate independence. Mr. SWITZER. I do not know of any now-I mean of those that I meet, now-that are in favor of it. I appear here, gentlemen of the committee, in opposition to near-by independence, and I see sitting around here now Filipinos who, I think, are friends of mine, and I know I am a friend of theirs. If I thought for a moment that near-by independence was for their best interests, God knows, I would be for it, because it is no pleasure to be against what some of your good friends really want, and I am not questioning their sincerity in wanting their independence. I probably would do exactly the same as they are doing. The CHAIRMAN. Knowing them as well as you do, what is the basis of their desire for independence? How is it different from the attitude taken by the Southern States during the Civil War? Is it any different? Let us put the question in another way. Is it because they are oppressed by American rule? Mr. SWITZER. Oh, no, not at all. I do not think there is anybody who will say they are oppressed. I want to make this statement, 9210 —30 —PT 4 5 402 INDEPENDE'NCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS however, Mr. Chairman, right here. I do not believe any of our Filipino friends will say they are oppressed, but I do think they are perfectly right in saying that the continuation of this indefinite status is not playing the game with them. The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. Mr. SWITZER. Coming back to the question you asked me a minute ago, as to the parallel between their asking for independence and the Southern States trying to secede, I do not think there is any parallel, because the Southern States at that time seceded primarily for an economic reason, which was slavery. These good people are not asking for independence for an economic reason, because it is working just the opposite, because economically independence is not to their best interests, and I think most of them know that, so that there is no parallel. The C-HAIRMAN. Just what is it, in your mind, that animates them? Is it purely the sentimental idea of Patrick Henry-' Give me liberty or give me death "? Mr. SWITZER. Mr. Chairman, I imagine they are actuated by exactly the same sentiments you and I would be actuated by under the same circumstances. I think it is perfectly natural that they should want independence. As a matter of fact, I can understand why they ask for it, even if they know it is going to hurt-and they must know it is going to hurt. It is just because of that inborn natural nationalisn that any people have. I do not quarrel with them for having it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is based on the racial sense of nationalism? 1Mr. SWITZER. I do not think there is anything racial about it. I thinll it is just their desire for their own separate national life. So far as I have observed, I believe the Filipinos, if they must be under the sovereignty of anY country, would rather be under American sovereeignty thn that of any other people. There is no antipathy in that respect. The CAIRJ.ANr.tAN. Our friends in Canada are just as fond of libert.-ad- a little bit more so. perhaps-as we are in the United States. They seem to have more personal liberty. Mr. SWIT'ZER:. Ye': but. Mr. Chairman. there is a big difference. They are British. Tile Fijiptnos tare Filipinos and we are Americans. The CHAIRtM.N. Of courl'e, we were British whIen we secured our independence, or befoirewewe secured it. Mr. SWITZER. Yes; but that is a liffeerent thin,. 1il-re is a great diffei'ence between that situation then and our situtation to-day. At that tilme Eingland -was hold'ino us so that she cotild tax us. We are tryingl to get rid of the Philippines so that we can tax them. The CH-IRAI.AN. That is true. Selnator IlAwJ:ES. I want to ask vout one or two questions. What is ihe general feeliln am ono the Filipinos regarding our promise to (r: ve theni incependence? Is it their general belief that we lid promise? Mrl. SWITZE.lR. I thiimk so. S~ to 10~4 cents. The price of cottonseed oil advanced over 5 cents per pound while coconut oil was one-quarter cent per pound cheaper on June 10 than it was on JanuarylO. The facts are, that the perpendicular advance in the price of cottonseed oil was caused by an acute shortage and the price advanced until importations of peanut oil and Egyptian cottonseed oil, at high duty-paid prices, started a down — ward reaction in the price of the cottonseed oil. The coconut oil had no effect whatever on the price of cottonseed oil, as these two oils are used for distinctly different purposes and coconut oil can not be used in the manufacture of those cooking fats for which cottonseed oil is particularly used. I believe there is hardly any one in the cottonseed oil trade, who does not know that coconut oil can not be used as a substitute for cottonseed oil in the manufacture of vegetable lard, cooking oil, and salad oil. Naturally, the foreign oils which come into competition with cottonseed oil are varieties which possess, to a sufficient degree, the qualities possessed by cottonseed oil and the foreign varieties which are actual competitors of American cottonseed oil can not enter into the United States except upon the payment of very high duties and naturally, when cottonseed oil advances to a price in excess of the duty-paid cost of such substitutes, as peanut oil, substitution begins to appear and the advance in the price of cottonseed oil is checked. In view of the very high rates of duty imposed upon foreign peanut oil, cottonseed oil and soybean oil, the price of domestic cottonseed oil can never be weakened until it has reached such a high level that no ground for complaint can exist for its advance being: terminated. There is about as much logic in claiming that the price of American cottonseed oil is depressed by importations of coconut oil from the Philippines as there would be to the claim that the price of American cottonseed oil was depressed by importations of rubber from Singapore. Respectfully submitted. SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS (Inc.), HOWARD KELLOGG, President. 602 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS _ = =., Date Bleachable New York cottonseed oil F. o. b. Pacific coast coconut oi i; I Date 1924 Apr. 10 ---------------- Apr. 20 --- —------- -i May 10 -------------- May 20 -------------— _ June 10 ---------------- June 20 ---------— ____ July 10 --- —-------------- July 20. --- —------ Aug. 10 --------------- Aug. 20 ------------— _ Sept. 10 --------------- Sept. 20 --- —----------- Oct. 10 - --------------- Oct. 20 --------------- Nov. 10 --- —----- i Nov. 20 --- —------—. --- Dec. 10 --- —----------— i Dec. 20 --- —--- 1925 Jan. 10 --- —------ - -- - - Jan. 20 --- —------------ Feb. 10 ------ - - - - - - Feb. 20 ---------------- M ar. 10 --- - - - - - - - Mar. 20 --- —------------- Apr. 10 -------- Apr. 20 --- —------------- M ay 10 ---- - - - - - - May 20 --- —-------------- June 10 ----------— ___ June 20 ---------------- July 10 --- —------------- July 20 --- —-----—. Aug. 10 ---------. Aug. 20 --- —------------ Sept. 10 --------------- Sept. 20 ----------------- Oct. 10 -------- Oct. 20 ----------—.Nov. 10 --------- Nov. 20 --- —---------- Dec. 10 ----- Dec. 20 --- —---- 1926 Jan. 10 ----------------- Jan. 20 -- - - - - - - - - Feb. 10 -------------- Feb. 20 --------------- Mar. 10 --- —------------ Mar. 20 --- —------------- Apr. 10 ---------------- Apr. 20 --- —---- May 10 --- —---- May 20 --- —-- June 10 ------------------ June 20 ------------------ July 10 ----—. --- — - July 20 --------------- Aug. 10 --- —-------------- Aug. 20 --- —------------ Sept. 10 ---------------- Sept. 20 --------------- Oct. 10 --- —---- Oct. 20 --- —--- Nov. 10 ------- - - Nov. 20 --- —------------- Dec. 10 --- —--- Dec. 20 -- F ft 'er 100 Cents per ounds pound $10. 10 8 10.04 77 10. 25 7/ 9.70 75 10.20 75/ 10.46 734 11.50 8s 12.25 82 13.50 9 14.00 9~ 10.31 9 9.45 81 / 11.15 91 11.30 95/ 10.79 9/ 10.90 9Y 11.34 958 11. 50 97/ 11.10 10 11.13 993' 10. 70 914 10.50 8 / 11.10 9/8 11.20 91 11.35 8/ 11.10 9 10.65 88 ~ 10.00 8~ 10.60 9 10.85 878 11.15 9'/ 11.50 9~/ 11. 76 94 10.85 9 10.86 10 10.65 10 10.06 111 9.83 112 10.25 1134 1 10. 25 122 10.20 11 4 10.30 10 i I 1927 Jan. 10 __1 --- —----- Jan. 20 - Feb. 10 - -—! ---Feb. 20 -—.. ------- Mar. 10 -----------— _ Mar. 20 _ --- —------ _ Apr. 10 ------------ ji Apr. 20 ------------------ May 10 ---------------—. - May20. --- —----— _ June 10 - ------------------ June 20 ------------- - - July 10 --- —----—. - July 20 - -----------— 1 Aug. 10 -------------—. Aug. 20 -------— _ ---i Sept. 10 --------------- I Sept. 20 --------------— j Oct. 10 ------------ Oct. 20 ------------ - - Nov. 10_. --- —--- Nov. 20 --- —------- -- - Dec. 10 -------------- Dec. 20 --------------- 1928 Jan. 10 _ --- —--------- Jan. 20 ------------- Feb. 10 --- —------ I Feb. 20 ---—. --- —. I Mar. 10 -------- | | Mar. 20 --- —--- Apr. 10 --- —-----------—! Apr. 10 Apr. 20 ---------------- May 10 --- —---------- - May20 --------— _June 10 ------- June 20 -- July 10 ---------------- July 20 ------ Aug. 10 --- —-- Aug. 10 ----------- Sept. 10 --- —----------- - Sept. 20 ------------- Oct. 10 --- —------------. Oct. 20 --------------- Nov. 10 —. --- —------ Nov. 20 - -------------- Dec. 10 --- —-----------—. Dec. 20 - Dec. 20 --- —------------—! 1929 Jan 10 --------- ----- Jan. 20 ------------- Feb. 10 -----------—. --- Feb. 20 --- —----- Mar. 10 --- —------------- Mar. 20 --- —--- Apr. 10 --- —-------------- Aprl 20 --- — ----—. May 10 --- —------- - j May 20 ------------------ June 10 ------------------- June 20 ----------- Bleachable F. o. b. New York Pacific cottonseed coast oil coconut oil Per 100 Cents per pounds pound $8.60 8sI 8. 60 8S 9.00 8% 9.87i 8s 9.60 7J7 9.40 8 9.00 8 8.70 8 8.90 8~s 9.19 81s 9.10 j 8is 9. 25 84 9. 30 84 9. 65 j 8 9. 75 8 10.00 1 8/8 11.25 88 10. 25 i 8 11.00 8Vs 10.40 8Y2 10. 75 j 88 10.60 83 9.90 8 9.80 85/i6 10.20 84 10.00 9.10 9.25 9.60 9.65 9.90 10.00 10. 50 10. 50 10. 20 10.20 10.15 10.10 9.48 9.35 9.85 9.75 9.80 9.40 9.25 9.75 10.03 10.00 8~ 8~ 814 8 4 83/16 8Ms 8X 84 8 4 8Y8 8~ 8 8 7% 734 734 7% 734 7~ 8 8 8 ~ 8~ $11.10 11.50 11.00 11.62 12.15 12. 50 11.75 12.35 13.50 14. 70 16.20 14. 35 15.50 15. 15 13.00 12.65 1 12.55 9.99 1 8.75 8.45 8.28 8.10 8.05 8.20 10Y2 1012 10 97V 914 9h2 91/2 91/2 9h3 10~ 10lo l8O 98 9 8% 8y! 8 1 8 ~ 8 8 7~ 7,74 i iI I i 10. 10 10. 20 10. 65 10.60 10.90 10. 70 10.39 10. 00 9.80 9.75 1 9.65 9.60 1 7 ~ 74 8 74 7 8 713 7e 7 Y 7I 64 612 65% INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 603) APPENDIX F. LETTER FROM ALBERS BROS. MILLING CO. PORTLAND, OREG., February 13, 1930. Hon. FREDERICK STEIWER, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Supplementing our previous letter in reference to exportations of flour to the Philippine Islands, we have information from the Pacific Flour Export Co. that the question of Philippine independence is now before Congress. We admit that we are in no position to say whether the Philippine Islands should have their independence or not, but we do feel that if, after all the angles have been duly considered, our Government feels that the Philippine Islands should have their independence we believe that in giving them their independence, trade agreements can be made to give exportations from the United States preference, and it is from this angle that we are attaching hereto figures which have been compiled showing the relative importations of the Philippine Islands i over a period of years. We particularly want to call your attention to Exhibit B, which shows that in 1908-9 there was exported from the United States to the Philippine Islands less than $7,000,000, whereas in 1928 there was a total of almost $84,000,000. In the detail statement you will note that cotton goods stands second on the list, wheat flour fifth, and meat and dairy products seventh. All of this business directly affects agriculture. No doubt it will be interesting for you to know that the freight rates from Puget Sound to Manila and freight rates from Puget Sound to the Netherlands Indies are the same. At the present time the United States does not enjoy any preference in shipments of American flour to the Netherlands Indies; therefore, we believe that the figures shown in Exhibits C and D should be of considerable interest to you. With a preferential duty of 42 cents per barrel on shipments of wheat flour to the Philippine Islands we enjoyed approximately 86 per cent of the business, Australia approximately 10 per cent. In the shipments of wheat flour to the Netherlands Indies, Australia enjoyed approximately 95 per cent of the business. We understand it is the opinion of some that Philippine independence would and could not seriously affect our trade relations. We certainly doubt this in view of the above facts; therefore, it would seem to us if the Philippine Islands are serious in their desire for independence that some lasting preferential trade arrangements should be made. Through the Farm Board we are making a strenuous effort to place agriculture on a solid foundation; therefore, we felt it our duty to draw to your attention certain facts which we trust you will give consideration before taking a definite stand for or against Philippine independence. Yours very truly, ALBERS BROS. MILLING Co., By S. C. DRAPER. EXHIBIT A Imports of wheat flour into the Philippine Islands Year American Canadian Australian Total 1924 --------------------—. --- —--- 2,682,465 20,499 434,116 3,137,080 1925 --------....... --- —-------------- 2,131,583 38,100 426,429 2,596,112 1926.-............ 2, 358,981 39, 325 342, 328 2, 740,634 1927 ------------------------------ 2,363,906 103,747 273,626 2,741,279 1928 ------------------------------—.- 2,525,653 148,935 285,133 2 932,721 1929, 11 months-. --------- 2,776,980 119, 216 328, 252 3224,448 604 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EXHIBIT B Imports into Philippine Islands from United States 1908 --- ---- $5, 101, 836 1919 - ------- 1909 --- —------ 6, 445, 331 1920_ --- —--- 1910 --- —--- -__ 20,068,542 1921 --- —---- 1911 ----------- 19, 156, 987 1922_ ----_ ___ 1912_-___ _____ 24,309,010 1923 --- —---- 1913 --- —------ 26,676, 161 1924 --- —---- 1914 — ___ — ___ 24,011,401 1925 --- —---- 1915 ---------- 26,381,069 1926 --- —---- 1916 --- —------ 22,862,673 1927 --- —---- 1917 --- —------ 37, 620, 642 1928 --- —------------- 1918 --- —---- 58, 824, 611 $75,491, 415 92,289, 778 74, 130, 015 47,738, 325 50,352, 535 60,398, 603 69,297, 583 71,575, 618 71, 478, 297 83,858, 068 Articles imported into the Philippine Islands from United States during 1928 Iron and steel and manufactures thereof --- - -$15, 795, 785 Cotton goods --- —--- _ - _. - ---- 15, 398, 033 Oils ------------------------— __ 7 379, 805 Automobiles, parts for, and tires for ------ _______ — 6, 511, 173 Wheat flour ---— _ ---. — ___-.. --- —- __ _ 4, 625, 128 Meat and dairy products —___ — -----— _____- 3, 719, 784 Tobacco products —_ -— __. __- __- _ _ _- ____- 3, 005, 456 Paper and its manufactures ____ __ 2, 802, 521 Silk (natural and artificial) and its manufactures ---- ______- 2, 100, 289 Electrical goods --- —-------------------- 1, 915, 662 Canned fish products, etc -____. — _ _ —_ — ____ 1, 693, 210 Fruits and nuts --- —--------------- 1, 235, 269 Leather and manufactures --- —--- ---------- 1, 159, 327 Fertilizers --- —-------------------- 1, 050, 677 Soap --- —------------------------ 1, 026, 326 Cars, railway, and parts of ___________ --— __ - 846, 375 Paints and pigments ----------------- 695, 814 Medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations -_ --- ---- - 688, 444 Vegetable products ---------------- 676, 819 Caustic soda and other chemicals, drugs, dyes, and medicines --- — 512, 675 Miscellaneous products and manufactures thereof --- ______ — 11, 020, 496 Total --- —-------------------- 83, 858, 068 EXHIBIT C Imports all flour at ports of Philippine Islands (population, 11,414,000) January 1 -December 31 (In barrels) American C Canadian Australian Year Total Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 1926 --- —---------------------- 589,734 86.66 10,591 1.54 88, 082 12. 80 688,418 1927 --- —---------------------- 590, 975 86. 23 25,936 3.78 68,406 9.99 685,318 1928 ------------------- 631,413 86.12 37, 234 5.08 64, 534 8.80 733,181 1929 (10 months) — 645,837 85.39 25, 51 3. 74 73, 757 9. 87 745, 045 Imports all flour at ports of Netherlands Indies (population, 49,350,000), January 1 -December 31 (In barrels) United YrAustra- States, Year liAustra- Japan, Total Canada, etc. 1926 ---. ---- ----------------------------------------------- 6635,245 57,313 692,360 1927 ---- - -------------- 705, 246 28,866 734,112 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 605 Exports American flour from United States ports (Department of Commerce Statistics), January 1 to December 31 [In barrels] Year To Philip- To Nether. pine Islands land Indies 1926 -------------------------------------------- 1.. 610, 000 20,000 1927 ----------------------------------------- 65 635, 000 31,000 1928. --- —-------------------------------------------------------. 766, 000 55,000 1929 (10 months) --- —--- -------------......... --- —--------- 709, 000 43,000 EXHIBIT D Imports of wheat flour into Netherland East Indies, 1928 Countries of origin: Barrels Netherlands ---------------------— 1, 029 United States ---------------------— 11, 963 Singapore -------------------------- 19, 947 Hong Kong --------------------------------- 253 China ----------------------— 3, 209 Japan ------------------------— 23, 891 Penang ------------------— 2, 184 Australia ------------------------- - 752, 598 Other countries --------------------— 646 Total --- —------------- 815, 720 APPENDIX G STATEMENT BY THE GOOD GOVERNMENT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MANILA, January 29, 1930. The Committee Discussing Philippine Independence of the Congress of the United States of America. GENTLEMEN: Our chief concern is, not whether the declarations herein, will please or be appreciated by the Filipino Commissioners presently fighting for the independence of their country, but, whether they will assist you to arrive at a decision that will be satisfactory to all concerned. This organization composed of 4,000 intelligent men and women of all nationalities residing in the Philippine Islands, have arrived at the conclusion that the Filipino people are deserving of independence and are fully competent to manage their own affairs. The undersigned, an American citizen, has resided in these islands since June, 1899, and has, during said time, been in a position to study the people and their progress. Since the administration of Chief Justice Taft, as Governor General of the Philippine Islands, the government of the country has been in the hands of the Filipino people, and during that period not one instance can be recited, of any foreigner or native being deprived of his constitutional rights or liberty because of race, creed, or color. This is a great deal more than we can say of our own country. The courts of justice are 99 per cent in the hands of Filipinos, and in all of them every man is equal before the law. In every other way they have successfully managed the affairs of their government. The fact that the supreme authority in the islands has been, and is, the American Governor General, can not be attributed as the cause for the success achieved as is well-known by the members of your body. Very respectfully yours, GOOD GOVERNMENT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, By T. N. MCKINNEY, Acting President. 92109-30-PT 6 ----6 606 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS APPENDIX H LETTER AND ARTICLE BY PEDRO B BUNUAN NEW YORK CITY, February 25, 1930. CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIRS: In compliance with justice, liberty, and humanity as the basis of good government and within the boundary of intellectual honesty of the human race, I have the honor to communicate with you fbr the first time. In the realm of superstitious and cobwebbed reasons of those who are actually engaged against truth, I desire to place myself as an unwelcome friend of both American and Filipino officials who are working hand in hand to solve the Philippine independence. To love justice, to long for the right, to destroy prejudice, and to wage relentless war against slavery have given me strength and courage to challenge the moral, heroic, and sublime genius of those who are within the Halls of Congress that are against the truth. Their false testimony has weakened your cooperation and trust to our official representatives who are elected and chosen by our people. Their imperialistic policy has poisoned your mind and fear has placed this committee to be honest. Your conscience tells you that. Both politicians and imperialists of this country have insulted the intellectual honesty of our official representatives. They were accused by saying (only the native politicians are agitating Philippine independence), because they have nothing to do. This is down right lies-the Filipinos regardless of creed and political affiliation are clamoring for freedom. If there are few who are against their freedom because they are made traitors and crooks of their country by the Americans, let them stay in America. They are not wanted in the Philippines. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, if I have the money to finance my expenses to stay in Washington, I gladly come to present you more facts and truth about the racial discord that cherishes the intellectual and moral spheres of the Filipinos to challenge your authority. In some States, particularly in California, where Filipinos are crowded, racial prejudice has been the result of starving, bombing, and shooting our countrymen. In the city of New York, the same offenses are being carried on in various employment offices. The Filipinos are treated worse than dogs. I desire, if you do not mind, to please do not ignore my request to read these two letters before the hearing on the question of Philippine independence. I am only victim of this racial prejudice and before I starve I would like to inform the officials of this Government and the people as a whole that the Filipinos prize liberty more than their very lives. As to your resolution to form a committee to study the conditions of the Filipinos, is only a scheme to prolong the time for the capitalists to find Americans and Filipinos who are willing to bribe. It will be the same as Thompson. He went their to survey the natural resources of the Philippines. These fine Americans and Filipinos will say-the Filipinos have no navy, army, and economically they are supposed to eat with spoons and plates made of gold like the American capitalists. They should speak only one language and many other pretentions pro and con. This will be the outcome. Mr. Chairman, your resolution is not practical. This will further the abuse and racial differences. Freedom first and in no time we will develop our natural resources. The American Republic took over three decades to have her Navy, Army, and other material progress. Very respectfully yours. PEDRO B. BUNUAN. PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE NOT GRANTED AND FILIPINOS ARE NOT WANTED IN AMERICA BY THE AMERICANS [By Pedro B. Bunuan] The disparager of culture has placed the Filipinos under a revolting sentiment and has assumed strength and courage to challenge their enemies in presenting the truth about condition and facts as plain as possible to the officials of this Government and the people as whole. The native politicians are accused by their opponents to be the only ones agitating Philippine independence but we say this is wrong. The Filipinos have been under two forms of government INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 607 -monarchy and democracy. Faith has brought the Filipinos under the Stars and 'Stripes to suffer in the hands of the American crooks and imperialists, just, as we suffered under the brutality and cruelty of the Spanish Catholic power. History will repeat itself. We learned that the same class Americans have filled with bitter accusation against our independence and stirred Congress and the people of as whole with their frivolous and ficticious reasoning to condemn our demand of immediate freedom. Their policy has always been to take all they can from us and give us little as possible. They have a long arm for taking and a short arm for giving. American friends-instead of sending us teachers, instructors, and helpersyou have sent concession hunters, conscienceless and usurious bankers, American capitalists and bribers, commercial tricksters, murderers, -soldiers to shoot us, *degenerates and carriers of loathsome and infectious diseases. Instead of trying -to elevate our people and make them better and more patriotic, you have made crooks and traitors of many of us in order that your unscrupulous bankers, capitalists, and Washington politicians can control our Government and the:affairs of our country. To begin with let me invite you to consider the things that the Filipinos are accused of. Few years ago there took place in the Philippines, what was known as national bank corruption. This was attributed by American imperialists to the incapability of my people for self-government and the prevalence of dirty politics in the Philippines. This unfortunate event really took place, but those who were responsible, including the president of the bank were sent to jail. Did this mean the incapability of my people to govern themselves? If this is true what about the Tweed ring scandal, Tammany dirty politics of years ago, the Teapot Dome of the present generation, smell of oil over the Nation and what about Vare of Pennsylvania and Smith of Illinois. Is this a stable government? It is said that Japan will grab the Philippines as soon as the United States relinquishes her soveriegnty. Japan has no such selfish desire, for if she has she could have taken the Philippines during the Spanish time. Her people can not stand the climatic condition in the Philippines. In 1919 there were 12,000 Japanese in the islands, but, now there are less than 2,000 left. The rest went back home. England and Holland will not tolerate Japanese domination because of their commercial interest in the Far East. You must take also into consideration that Japan was instrumental in putting down the imperialistic ambition of Germany in the World War. Above all Japan expressed herself that she will be the first one to sign a covenant respecting the neutrality of the Philippine Republic. It is also said that there will be revolution in the Philippines as soon as independence is granted. We do not contemplate any such thing in the Philippines. Suppose that there will be revolution as soon as independence is granted. WTill it not be justified in history? Look at England with her War of Roses. Look at France with her revolution and what about this Republic with her Civil War that caused the death of the greatest and foremost liberator of mankind (Abraham Lincoln). Let the Filipinos have their independence, let them fight against themselves; if they must; if that will make them as the great nation in the Orient. Again it is said that the Filipinos are savages and head hunters. If so; what about this most extraordinary case in American history. In some respect, it has hardly a precedent anywhere, certainly none in the history of the Philippines. This most extraordinary murder was committed by Edward Hickman. It was a cool, calculating, money-making murder. It was weighing of money against life, and the counting of so many pieces of silver against so many ounces of blood. A 12-year-old girl (Miriam Parker of California) was made victim of a butcherly murder. American friends, this is worse than savagery and head hunting in the Philippines. Again it is said by Katharine Mayo, a woman without conscientious judgment, that the Philippines is an ilse of fear. What about holdup, vanity, debauchery, divorce, and racial hatred all over the Nation. This is Christianity, civilization, and education of the white race. John H. Pardee, of 32 Liberty Street of New York City, the financial magnet representing the American investors of the railroads in the Philippines have stressed his flexable desire to hold the Philippines for 30 years and with his deceitful and cunning wit has tried to inculcate in your minds his great opposition to immediate freedom. He thinks that this length of time will be long enough for the American imperalists (like him) to take hold of the natural resources of 'our country and long enough to enslave the Filipinos. He knows that the longer we are under the American flag, our spirit and means will be lost by that t 608 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS time. Again D. F. Webster, 80 Wall Street of New York City, vice president of the Pacific Commercial Co. said that only the native politicians are agitating Philippine independence. This is a downright lie. The Filipinos regardless of creed and political affiliation (except those Filipinos who are made crooks and traitors by the Americans) are for independence. Take me as an example-I am but a common citizen of my country who is suffering like other Filipinos in America due to racial prejudice. I am ready at all times to say to the world that my country is not only ready and capable to maintain an independent government, but, it is her God-given right, morally, racially, and geographically American friends-You are aware of the fact that we are not wanted in America as well as you are not wanted in the Philippines. Opposition has been presented in the form of resolutions within the hall of the State Legislature of California and by Justice of the Peace S. W. Rohrback in the North Monterey Chamber of Commerce condemning Filipinos as undesirable citizens. The outcome of this resolution-racial problem is growing everywhere in America. The people who claimed to be Christian, educated, and civilized are bombing and shooting our countrymen. Nay-American friends-these murders committed by the American people toward the Filipinos is the un-Christian, undemocratic principles and against the law of the Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. American friends-It is for you to decide whether it is within your heart desire to hold still a people of different race, of the different environment, of culture and tradition which are tremendously and exceedingly unacceptable in your social and business alike and above all it is against our will to be governed by any nation. The only solution to this problem to prevent disrespect and disloyalty to your flag is to comply your promise-grant us complete, immediate, and absolute independence. To scrutinize the reasons and facts affecting the Filipinos as I stated above the American imperialists and politicians have influenced the party in power, the officials of the Government and the people as a whole to condemn the legitimate and God-given right of the Filipinos to set up their government according to their environment, civilization, education, and other ways to protect our very lives, property, and the pursuit of our happiness; and to solve our destiny-treat the Filipinos without constitutional guarantee and protection and above all we are humiliated racially and socially by the Americans. We welcome you with open arms and in turn you abused us. We want justice and not charity. Truejustice is the firmed pillar of good government. American friends your promise to those people concern your dignity and honor and embodies in the immortal principles of Lincoln that no man is good enough to govern another without others' consent. Now, it is your duty to say, my brother, I came to save you from tyranny and oppression, to prepare you for political and economic freedom and now that you have proven yourself more than worthy to the trust and that you are actually prepared to direct your destiny, I bestow upon you, my brother, the glorious heritage of mankind-liberty and freedom. American friends, you are the greatest people who believe in fair play. You have demanded for yourself political freedom and independence and you have always been true to the principles for which your forefathers bled and died. You are the beneficiaries of that immortal document (the Declaration of Independence) you who have fought in the World War in order to make the world safe for democracy and to preserve the right of small nations for self-government, cast your eyes to those 13,000,000 souls in Philippines and hand them their freedom. Let America and Philippines stand side by side as free nations. Let the stars and stripes wave again as the symbol of liberty, justice, and democracy and then the Filipinos will forever express an everlasting gratitude to this great American Republic. PEDRO B. BITNUAN, 439 West Fifty-seventh Street, New York City. APPENDIX I [Letter from the Chicago Spring Hinge Co.] CHICAGO, January 24, 1930. Hon. HIRAM BINGHAM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We note that the matter of Independence of the Philippine Islands is again under consideration; in fact, that a bill has been introduced with that INDEPENDENCE FOR TEE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 609 ~object in view, and that the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs is conducting hearings in regard to it. W*We are interested in this matter as we believe that anything that disturbs the present relations between the United States and the Philippine Islands will disturb what business we are doing with the islands at the present time and we know from our experience in the Japanese and Chinese markets as well as in other markets that we will be shut out of this market except on the very highest grade buildings through foreign competition, German in' particular. It is probably true that the present condition hurts some of our industries such,as the sugar and coconut oil industries, but we think that these industries should not be allowed to disturb the exports of American goods to the Philippine Islands, which we understand amount to $83,000,000 at the present time and are rapidly,developing. We are not in position to judge as to the ability of the Filipino to govern himself but the reports from those who are best able to judge the situation seems to indicate that they are not yet ready for this step. We believe, therefore, from that angle of the matter we would be doing them an injustice to prematurely turn them loose. We trust that you will have our interests in mind when giving consideration — to this subject. Very truly yours, CHICAGO SPRING HINGE CO., JAS. COLLINS, Vice President. APPENDIX J [Article in behalf of dairying interests] THE AMERICAN FARMER VERSUS THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT GROVE When the Dewey's ships and big guns blasted their way into Manila Harbor 'and the Philippines fell into the hands of Uncle Sam, American agriculture was handed not a lemon, but a coconut. Industrial nations need colonies to supply them with cheap food. Crowded -nations need colonies to find a place for their surplus population. The United:States is neither, but we have had the colonies dropping into our laps just the Csame. The Philippine Islands send us two commodities of which we have no need, vegetable oil and sugar. Almost everyone by this time knows all about our export surplus problem, but apparently only a very few people in the United States seem to understand that here is an import surplus problem. In vegetable oils alone the import;surplus is around a billion pounds a year-eighty to a hundred million dollarsmost of it from the Philippines. The sugar import surplus has reached about 500,000 tons a year. FACTS ABOUT VEGETABLE OILS Before this session and the special session of Congress is over, the Members, and perhaps a few hundred thousand other folks, will learn that "oil" means something besides " petroleum " and that there is another oil problem as important as Teapot Dome. The largest group of organizations, representing the largest number of people who are concerned with any single item in the whole tariff -bill, has petitioned Congress for an effective tariff on animal, vegetable, and fish -oils, and the oil-bearing materials from which they are produced. Oil always has been a chief source of light. Well, before this affair is disposed of in Congress, several million people will have a lot more light on the subject of vegetable oils. All these oils are the product of agriculture except that which comes from the fish industry. Most of agriculture is devoted to the production of carbohydrates-sugars, statches, and fats. That agriculture is fortunate which produces proteins, for proteins are scarce. Starches and fats aie very plentiful in the natural products of agriculture; hence, our surpluses of wheat, corn, cotton, lard, and cottonseed oil. But why should this great Nation with a tariff record of protection for its industries dating back to the cradle days open wide its doors to the unlimited free 'importation of fats from an across-the-sea island, which overwhelms the American farmer? 610 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Very few people unlerstand the magnitude and the far-flung character of this problem. There was produced in the United States in 1928 approximately six and one-third billion pounds of fats and oils that went into commerce as fats and oils, and 2,000,000,000 pounds more of butter, made and sold as butter. Besides this there was a waste of raw materials which would have produced from 10 to 25 per cent more. Last year we imported about 1,000,000,000 pounds of vegetable and fish oils, and about 17,000,000 bushels of flaxseed besides. Did we need these imports? We did not. We exported 970,000,000 pounds of these same fats and oils during the same 12 months. The producers of these domestic fats and oils are now submitting to Congress that these foreign fats and oils should be kept out and the American products should be used at home, except perhaps some surplus of lard. They are asking an American market for products produced in America and that the competing imports be subjected to such rates of duty as equalizes foreign costs with the cost of the fats and oils produced here on an American standard of wages and of living. What could be more just and more fair? Why is the oil product of an American farm less entitled to its own market than the meats or the vegetables or the fruits or the wool or the cotton? WHO PRODUCES THIS VERITABLE FLOOD OF FATS AND OILS IN THE UNITED STATES? That is, just who wants this protection? If Dewey had known the answer to this question, he might have stayed outside of Cavite. We would have won the Spanish-American War just the same. Corn Belt swine, along with the other swine growers of the United States, produced 2,990,000,000 pounds of fats and oils in 1928. From cottonseed, produced in the 13 Southern States, a by-product of the cotton industry, there is produced 1,328,000,000 pounds of cottonseed oil. From peanuts which are now grown in eight or ten States and which can be produced in paying quantities if there were a prosperous peanut-oil industry in eight or ten more States, there is now produced about 7,000,000 pounds of oil. The amount in 1920 and 1921 was four or five times as large. This ties the South and West together. Flaxseed growers in the Northwest produce seed for nearly a half billion pounds of oil. Every head of cattle and sheep sent to the butcher, whether packer or local, produces a large contribution to this oil pool-tallow and its extracts account for one and a quarter billion pounds more. Corn oil gets a corner of this picture, with a production last year of 104,000,000 pounds. We will forget soybeans at this point, for the industry has not really started to grow here, and will not until this duty take effect-but still, last year there were 7,440,000 pounds of soybean oil made here. Then list sunflower seed, and the by-products of the various fruit industries, all of which are potential sources of oil. And last, but the giant of the group, is the butter industry-standing out alone, in a class by itself, but nevertheless subject to the competition in the stomachs of every human being with the edible oils of every other kind and class. The butter industry last year produced 2,070,000,000 pounds of butter, which is 80 to 82 per cent oil (butterfat). DO WE NEED IMPORTS? Has the United States reached a limit of production of these commodities, so the time is here to admit the products of the rest of the world, because we need them? Cotton-oil production can be sharply advanced by pressing seed now not used. The question is too foolish to need reply. The possibilities of soybean culture alone in the United States will take care of the needs of {he country for centuries to come for straight vegetable oil. Ten per cent of the present wheat and corn acreage could and would be turned into soybean fields the moment a market is opened here for soybean oil and cake,. at a living American price. WHO USES ALL THIS OIL? Who uses all of these oils? Who buys and uses them? Animal, vegetable, and fish oils are remarkably similar in their character and use, with exceptions of course. Olive oil is chiefly a salad oil, a cooking oil in / INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 611 the natural state. At the other extreme are linseed and tung oils (drying oils), whose best use is in paints, oils, and varnishes, but linseed oil can be made into cooking fat, edible as butter. The linoleum maker also depends on linseed oil. Between these are the largely interchangeable oils which include all edible lard and lard derivatives, the edible tallows, whale oil, fish oil (when refined), peanut oil, and sesame oil (both fine salad oils), cottonseed oil, coconut oil, perilla oil, hempseed oil, palm oil, and soybean oil, which with some others can be hardened at will and made into any and every kind of lard substitute and cooking fat. All these oils and some others, including part of the nonedible tallows and greases, house grease, butcher and garbage grease, find their final use in the soap kettles. Soap makers use a very little olive oil, considerable palm, probably some palm-kernel oil. Cosmetic makers use a lot of oils; sheet-metal makers use oils, especially palmkernel oil, in large quantities as a cooling bath. Soybean oil is the changeling a, of the whole motley array, and is used for almost any purpose that any oil can be yput to. Butter alone stands in a class by itself. Now someone will smile and say, "We put a tariff on soybean oil in the last bill, and it hasn't developed the new industry we were promised then?" Why? Because one-half billion pounds of Philippine coconut oil now reaches American soap makers, cooking fat makers and oleomargarine makers, duty free. This oil occupies every place that soybean oil would be used for at a cheaper price than soybean oil can be made here. Duty-free coconut oil kills the market for domestic soybean oil, and large imports of duty-free soybean cake kills the market for domestic soybean oil, and large imports of duty-free soybean cake kills the market for domestic cake. It takes a fair market for both cake and oil to make a soybean industry possible. A CERTAIN " FARM RELIEF " But what will happen if it is made profitable is worth thinking about. The soybean acreage will increase and this will utilize land now used for wheat and corn. The diversification will increase productivity and fertility. Every profitable soybean acre will mean an acre less of wheat surplus or corn surplus. Turning 10 per cent of the acreage in the winter wheat areas into soybeans will go farther, faster, and safer in solving the export surplus problem, and "equalizing agriculture" than all the legislative remedies ever proposed or ever possible. Four million acres in soybeans means 4,000,000 acres less wheat, 56,000,000 less bushels of wheat, 68,000,000 bushels more soybeans, and if one-half of the soybean seed went to the crusher there would be somewhere around 300,000,000 pounds of oil. Enough to immediately replace three-fifths of the coconut oil now imported from the Philippines. Besides, there would be 200,000 tons of soybean cake, as good a high protein feed as any dairy man can want, to replace the 129,000 tons imported last year, for which $4,690,000 (invoice price) of farmers' good money went to some foreign farmer, native in the Philippines, peon in the Argentine, or coolie in China. All that is said about soybeans can be repeated about peanuts and the reaction a profitable peanut industry will have on solving the cotton surplus and utilizing land rendered unfit for cotton by the boll weevil. OIL PRICES WILL ADVANCE Of course, all of this contemplates some price adjustments. That is just the point. If price adjustments were not to be produced, there would neither be opposition, nor benefit. A tariff of 3 or 4 cents on the oils now free of duty and the oil materialsfrom the Philippines and elsewhere-would permit the expansion of every domestic oil producing industry under the stimulus of a price between prices now ruinously low and the 3 or 4 cent margin. A deficit, if any, would be filled by imported oil, at the newer higher price level, the foreign producer receiving the American price less the tariff. Until a full supply were produced in the United States, the foreign producer might get just as much for the oil as he is now paid. But without doubt there would be a readjustment upwards in the domestic price. And naturally the soap makers, the cooking-fat makers, and the oleomargarine makers are vigorously opposing this advance in price. They say it will ruin them. 612 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ABOUT SOAP PRICES "It will increase 10-cent soap to 15 cents," their spokesman has told the Ways and Means Committee. If the price of soap oils are increased an average of 3 cents a pound this will increase the cost of soap only 99 cents per 100 pounds. Since the usual 10-cent cake weighs about 4 ounces, it will increase the cost of the 10-cent cake just 1 per cent less than one-quarter cent. Factory expenses, including fancy wrappers, and the sales expenses, including transportation and advertising, will not be increased. If, perchance, the soap manufacturers should advance the cost as they claim, they would be adding just 4%4 cents to the profit of retailer, wholesaler, and manufacturer. Besides the 500,000,000 pounds of coconut oil which comes in duty free as oil or as copra from the Philippine Islands, we are also receiving duty free over 400,000,000 pounds of other oils, chiefly Chinese wood oil, palm and palm kernel. Of course, to be effective, the new duties must apply to these and all other competing oils. We are also receiving duty free 27,000,000 pounds of oil-bearing materials and 250,000,000 pounds of oil cake. These, too, are to go on the dutiable list. OILS AND FATS-INTERCHANGEABLE Do the soap makers, the cooking-fat producers, and the oleomargarine makers need these fats? Absolutely not. They buy them, and use them in their products and their formulas solely and 'wholely because they are cheaper than the fats they used before these oils became known, produced, and shipped to the United States. There is not a place in domestic industry filled by coconut oil that can not be filled by soybean oil, cottonseed oil, lard, tallow, or some fish oil, or combination of these oils. There is little or no individuality in this oil game. There is, however, a high degree of technical skill in refining, modifying, and blending. Some one will inquire if they are not told that to make oleomargarine requires the very finest oils that can be had. Yes; they are told that, but it is only true in part. Oleomargarine can be made here and is being made in parts of Europe of whale oil, of soybean oil, and of linseed oil. The very best oleomargarine can and is being made of cottonseed oil, but coconut oil is steadily driving cottonseed oil out of margarine making-and for one reason and one reason only-and that is its price, produced in the tropical Philippines with 25 cents a day labor. More Philippine coconut oil was used last year in margarine than all of the domestic oils and fats put together. Chemical processes have wiped out most of the differences between oils, which were in fact differences between the impurities in those oils. The United States Department of Agriculture states that so far as chemical science can determine, there is no difference in food value between an ounce of tallow, an ounce of olive oil, an ounce of cottonseed oil, an ounce of coconut oil, or an ounce of butter. Biologic scientists only will tell you that a known, but elusive, vitamin is found in some oils, and not in others, and that is the sole differemce. Of course, the above statements do not take into account certain very separate and distinct oils, known as the drying or semidrying oils-used for paints, varnishes, linoleum, etc. While most of these can be reduced in quality to become edible, linseed, for example, chemical science has not vet perfected a method of raising the nondrying oils, which this article is chiefly discussing, up to a condition where they are successful competitors of linseed oil or tung oil. THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM Can the development of an American oil-producing industry in its own right and on an American standard of living be accomplished without touching this Philippine question? Absolutely not. The 500,000,000 pounds of imports from the Philippines is the "old man of the sea" which hangs around the neck of any effort to make an oil industry prosperous in the United States. It has stopped progress. It has prevented any profitable market for the cotton farmers and cottonseed. It has spoiled all profitable markets for packing house fatty by-products, and has cut this item of profit out of the producers' return for his fat steers or his feeder cattle. It has forced a low price level on all lard substitutes and cooking compounds, thus preventing any normal price increase in lard or profit to the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 613 hog grower from this part of his output. It prevents the adequate development of the corn oil industry. It puts every material used in oleomargarine on a lower price level, based on 25 cents a day Philippine labor, sharply increasing its competition with butter. It has ruined the peanut oil industry, which has declined 75 per cent in production in eight years. COCONUT OIL PRODUCTION UNLIMITED According to information contained in a booklet put out by the Department' of Commerce in 1925, Trade Series No. 11-Trade in Philippine Copra and Coconut Oil, `the fact is made plain that from coconut groves planted at that time, which would be bearing in 1930, the total production of coconut oil and copra available for export would be more than 2,000,000 barrels, or 60 per cent of our present production of cotton oil in the United States. It further shows that a coconut grove, including the cost of the land, can be put out at a cost of $100 per acre, and that in 10 years 1 acre of coconut trees will yield 1 metric ton of copra. The cost of growing, gathering, and drying copra, including bags, delivered at shipping point, is $20 per acre, exclusive of overhead, such as taxes, insurance, and interest and, allowing $10 per acre for this, makes a total cost of $30 per acre. At the time of this publication copra was selling at $75 per ton, and there has been little change in price up to this time. This leaves a net profit of $45 per acre, or 45 per cent on the invested capital. This booklet also reveals that there are vast areas adapted to coconuts which are not now in cultivation, therefore the logical conclusion is that if the industry is profitable and the same ratio of increased production is maintained in new trees planted since 1925 up to the present time, by 1935 the total production of coconut oil and its equivalent in copra available for export will amount to as much as our present cotton oil production. Therefore, unless Congress is prepared to tax the Philippines, there is little use to make a gesture in giving to the producers of animal and vegetable fats-and I mean by that the raw materials from which these are produced-imaginary tariff protection. Who wants vegetable and other oils left on the free list? The soap manufacturers, the cooking fat producers, the oleomargarine manufacturers. WHO WANTS THE DUTY LEVIED? Look at this list: The National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation. American Dairy Federation. Affiliated State Organizations. National Live Stock Producers Association. Central Cooperative Association. Southern Tariff Association. Farmers' Educational and Cooperative State Union of Nebraska. Missouri Farmers' Association. American Fish Oil Association. The Pacific Herring Packers' Association. Atlantic Coast Fisheries Co. Bay State Fishing Co. Gordon Pew Fisheries Co. Georgia Farmers' Union. Texas Oil Crushers Association. American Farm Bureau Federation. Oklahoma Oil Crushers Association. Interstate Cotton Seed Crushers Association. The National Grange. Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America. Southern Tariff Association. WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM? The real problem is to convince unadvised Members of Congress of the menace to American agriculture of retaining the present situation by which Philippine imports are permitted free entry to American markets. There is no legal question. Congress has the expressly stated power, with Supreme Court decisions to uphold it-to levy any duty it pleases on any commodity coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands or any other possession of the United States. The problem is to so state the need that Congress will see its duty to American agriculture. 614 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The opportunity to carry out this work most effectively will be presented on February 25, when the Ways and Means Committee will conduct hearings on the administrative features of the tariff act. The exemption of Philippine products from duty in the present tariff act is covered in the administrative features. The hearings on February 25 promise to be some of the most interesting held by the committee in the entire line of preparation for the revision of the present tariff act and the preparation of the new tariff act to be considered by Congress at the special session to be called by President-elect Hoover. J* APPENDIX K OUR FAILURE IN THE PHILIPPINES-SHALL WE GOVERN OR GET OUT? (By Henry Cabot Lodge, from Harper's Magazine) The traveling American is, as a rule, proud of his country. In spite of some obvious national shortcomings-and what nation is perfect?-he is inclined to be pleased with his country's evident material prosperity and its unquestioned industrial efficiency; and, if he is at all human, he derives considerable satisfaction from the envy which these things have aroused in others. If he is of open mind, he will admit that America may be deficient in some of the refinements of life, but it would never occur to him that he might see his flag 10,000 miles from home and be ashamed. Yet it is just this shock which lies in store for the observant American who visits the Philippines. For, on landing in Manila, if he lands without prejudice or preconceived idea, he finds that in the eyes of more than half the world we are making an exhibition of ourselves which would never for an instant be tolerated at home. If he has in the past dismissed the Philippines as "just something which belongs to us,' he finds after only a few days in Manila that he no longer so easily dismisses them. For he discovers that conditions exist there which are at present nothing short of scandalous, which may have fal-reaching implications for his country, and about which nothing whatever is being done. In order to understand the many implications of our tenure of the Philippines it is necessary, first of all, to clear one's mind of certain "imperialist" and "antiimperialist" notions which may have been sound enough in Kipling's prime or when Bryan ran for President but which are quite useless now. The era of the expansion of powers of the Temperate Zone into the Tropics is practically over, and this makes a discussion of the rights and wrongs of our acquisition of the Philippines extremely academic. It can safely be set down, however, that this expansion, conlmmonly called "imperialism," does not depend so much on the Kiplingesque motive of giving the brown brother a lot of moral improvement which lie does not want as on motives of self-interest. Britain, like Holland, France, and all European countries, needs large quantities of goods-notably raw materials —which can not be obtained at home. She also needs markets. Neither goods nor Inarkets are to be had unless law and order exist, and, once these are established, railroads and irrigation works can be built which will furthel increase both the supply of goods and the purchasing power of the market and will yield a profit in and of themselves. It seems wholly unnecessary to conceal these highly intelligent motives beneath the Kipling idea of bringing holiness into wild places. No less superfluous are the declarations of the so-called "antiimperialists" about the immemorial rights of man; for such declarations run in the face of all the facts. The tropical man-of which the Malay is one-is about the clearest example the world affords of the influence of environment on human beings. Nature does practically everything for him; she gives him food, clothing, and shelter for next to nothing; and the climate makes it difficult for him to do anything for himself. Therefore, his inclination is to do practically nothing. He makes a fetish of passivity. We, whose fetish is activity, would probably react in the same way if our ancestors had lived in the Tropics. But our ancestorx originated in the bleak north of Europe, where the beast had to be hunted and killed to provide clothes, the tree felled to get shelter, and the hard, ungrateful ground laboriously tilled to get food. We learned to combat and overcome nature and developed a fierce joy in so doing which has led to our present complex material civilization. The result is that when the northern man, with his taste for doing and overcoming, comes into contact with the tropical man, with his taste for submitting INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 615:and enduring, the tropical man always submits. To rail against this purely natural phenomenon and to talk about right and wrong in connection with it is -as fruitful as to rail against the changes in the seasons. It should be accepted as a fact, and programs for change should be based on this fact as a point of departure. So far as this article is concerned, the fact narrows down to the Philippinesan archipelago of some 3,000 islands extending north and south about as far as Maine us. from Florida, whose capital is three, days' steam from China, four or -five days away from Singapore and Java, and whose northernmost islands are.about 40 miles away from the southernmost islands of the Japanese Empire. This archipelago has a population of some 11,000,000 people, predominantly -of the Malay race. The Malay, to complete the setting of the stage, was called by the Spaniards the "brother of the water buffalo." The water buffalo, or carabao, enjoys sitting in one place, the Malay has always put up with tyranny and brutality because these are so much less trouble than to show an active interest in his own destiny. Long ago he was ruled by petty princes. Then came the Spaniards, who substituted their tyranny for his. And 30 years ago, by a strange turn of the wheel, the islands were laid on our doorstep. We thus became a colonizing power, though in our case there was scant practical justification for its because, unlike Britain or Holland, we not only did not need many kinds of raw materials-the disposal of our own was a serious problem. II. As one goes round the world from New York eastward, the word "tyranny" seems less and less objectionable to the people one encounters. When one gets half way around the world-to the Philippines-it actually seems mild; for many orientals, responding to an, immemorial tradition, regard tyranny as an essential attribute of government. In the Tropics this view is held all the more strongly because a tyrant's government, requiring no civic mental effort on the part of the governed, is appropriate to indolent people. To be sure, the oriental tyrant can be deposed if he goes too far, but another tyrant is then set up in his place. This fundamental government is joined to another which is still a strong factor in the east-that is the idea of government in a small community as distinguished from social organization on a national scale. The idea of nationality has appealed to us in the west because it is essential to us. Living in relatively barren places and having insatiable appetites for things we could not get where we lived, we have been compelled to look far afield to satisfy our wants and exchange the goods of one section with those of another. Nationalism, or government on a scale;broad enough to include these activities, is a natural and meritorious result. The tropical Malay, however, wears next to nothing, lives on a frugal diet of:astonishing monotony, and shelters himself from the sun and rain with plants -that grow without any help from him. Everything he needs DIe finds almost in his back yard. Why should he build roads, why should he think corporately, why should he look beyond? And why should we be surprised, as we always are, that he does not do these things? This local point of view may explain his indifference to appeals for funds for hospitals and public projects, as it also explains his family feeling, which is stronger than we westerners can conceive of. Children will sacrifice themselves for parents and parents for children, and the motto is, "We look after ours; you look after yours." The Malav thinks locally, as his circumstances require, and locally he is a success. So it is that, although the inhabitants of the Philippines are of the Malay race and brown skinned, this subdivision into small communities has created differences —and allowed virginal differences to subsist-which are as great as the difference between the white-skinned Englishman and the white-skinned Bulgar. Perhaps greater, because in addition to differences in features and languagethere are 87 Philippine tongues-there are fundamental differences in religion which add to the hardship of forcing these peoples to have intercourse with one another. In European countries there are still racial differences between the citizens of the same state, witness the Breton and Gascon of France and the Prussian and Bavarian of Germany. We Americans, however, in addition to loathing tyranny and exalting nationalism, have no such long-standing, aboriginal divisions to enable us to understand the divisions of others. When the Spaniards came to the Philippines in the early sixteenth century they found a host of small and unrelated communities ruled by petty princes, rajahs, and headmen. The Spaniards did not destroy this system but used it and governed by means of it. In the early days of American military government the system was not much interfered with. The great change came under Ameri 616 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS can civil government, when the attempt was made to transform a sprawlingarchipelago of tropical, oriental islands into a centralized nation on the western twentieth century plan; in other words, to impose the nationalist ideal upon a group of peoples having no need for it. Development along this line went on rapidly until, under the administration of Gov. Gen. W. Cameron Forbes, a note — worthy degree of centralization had been reached. By 1912 the American Government of the Philippines was something positive. Although it rested on the highly unsound assumption that what was good for us was good for the Malays, it was in its own American way efficient. A remarkably able American civil service was in charge and was achieving results. Roads had been built, and public health was good. Then in 1916 a Democratic Congress, frankly desirous of getting rid of the islands but lacking the courage to do so, passed the Jones Act, thus completely changing the situation. This law was written by a man who had little knowledge of colonial problems and it was based upon the political axiom that everything which one American party has done is ipso facto wrong and should be changed by the other. This law inaugurated the system of American responsibility without authority under which the Philippines have been administered ever since. It seems to justify the statement that while the Spaniards killed the Filipinos with cruelty, we are reducing themn to nothingness with kindness. Instead of allowing the plain facts to modify our first judgment, we have since 1916 assumed more strongly than ever that the Filipino is exactly the same as we are. We should have satisfied the requirements of democracy if we had assumed that they were our equals. But we declared that the tropical, village brown man was just like the northern national white man, and in the most important respect we showed that we did not mean what we said. In fact we showed that we were actually less democratic than the Spaniards, for they married the Filipino and gave the offspring a distinct social position. With the customary low-grade exceptions, Americans do not marry Filipinos, but maintain a separate social life. Under the Jones Act we set up our own triple-branch water-tight-compartment system of government-with a senate, a house, a judiciary, and an executiveand handed it over to the Filipinos. Our system is difficult enough for us to, operate; it would be wholly unworkable in most of the highly civilized, politicallyeducated European countries; and the result with the politically ignorant Filipinos is not hard to imagine. We complicated our own system further by placing an American at the head as Governor General who is not responsible to the Filipinos and receives only spasmodic backing from his own country. The American Governor General of the Philippine Islands is one of the most hopeless creations in the whole of governmental history. He is supposed to represent the sovereignty of the United States, and in that capacity is supposed to be supreme. At the same time he is at the head of a government of Filipinos, and in that capacity he can appoint no one to public office without the consent of the Filipino Legislature. He is thus a complete contradiction in terms. Only a genius could get positive results from such a system. The late Leonard Wood was just such a genius, but he was also mortal, and his labors killed him. The administration of his successor, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, shows why men of ability are no longer considering it a tempting honor to be offered the post of Governor General. Mr. Stimson attempted to strengthen the islands by giving legislative aid to the development of their economic resources-one of the most important problems in the islands to-day. He got somle of the legislation he desired-as much of it as could be repealed at once without any permanent changes having been effected. When it came to a bill to change the present system of restricted land holding-which would have involved permanent changes in titles-he was defeated. In return for these rather illusory victories he was obliged to make concessions involving a disheartening weakening of what little American prestige there was left. Under this system of governmental stagnation less than 1 per cent of the American civil servants have remained. Public health, which is such a vital matter in the disease-ridden tropics, can no longer be discussed because there are no longer accurate figures. The educational policy has had the result of filling an agricultural country with quantities of young men who refuse to engage in agriculture, their American education having taught them that white-collar jobs are the only proper ones. Instead, they head for the law in a country too poor for extensive litigation. Mr. Stimson himself has said that in a recent year the number of applicants for bar examinations in Manila would have excited comment in New York. There being not enough legal work to go around, these INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 617 young men have gone into the most profitable occupation in most poor countries-politics. We not only try to implant our notions of government and education; we:are trying to implant also our law and our language. If the Americans going to the islands went via Suez and thus noted the experiences of others, instead sof going via San Franciso, we might not be repeating the mistakes which other colonizing powers have made and have now ceased to make. We might, for instance, have seen what the Dutch are doing in Java, and emulated them. The Dutch have been in Java for 300 years and have discovered that the Malay has his own ideas of right and wrong, which may seem strange to us, but probably no stranger than our ideas seem to him. The Dutch did not force their law on their peoples. Instead, they studied the Malay customary law, codified it, and learned to live by it. The Malay has confidence in his own law; he understands and respects it. In certain sections of the Philippines, on the other hand, a year may go by without a civil case coming to court. The native, not being able to adjust himself to our system, is apt to feel that "pull" is all which counts in our courts:and prefers to settle outside. The same thing holds true of language. We did not remember that in medieval Europe Latin was the language of the school and that English, French, and German were the language of the home. We are trying to make the Philippines into an English-speaking nation; but in the homes Tagal, Visayan, and the other native dialects are spoken, lending color to the belief that English will always be as infrequently spoken in the isalnds as Latin is in the western world. The language of the home is the language which survives. The Dutch have realized this and do not seek to impose their language on the native. If our American officials had stopped at Batavia and Singapore on their way out, they might have received some even more fundamental notions. They might have seen the way in which the Dutch, for instance, who are the most dispassionate and scientific of colonizers, treat the question of the half-caste. Space forbids a complete consideration of this most interesting question here. It is enough to say that the Dutch, after first encouraging the creation of the halfcaste, later reached the conclusion (which is now generally shared) that he is an unfortunate creature, unfit for the great responsibility of government and unfit for the plain life of the native. We, on the other hand, have made the latest chapter of Philippine history the glorification of this inglorious creature in the civic sense, although socially we do not accept him. The Filipino half-caste or "mestizo" lives in the towns. He is glib, he can make phrases the meaning of which he himself sometimes does not comprehend. He has little less than hate for the white man and contempt for the pure-blooded native. Yet when we turned over the government to the natives the "mestizo" was the only class literate enough to govern. So it is that we abdicated our power in favor of this creature, and so it is that Philippine history may be said to consist of four periods in which the native was governed respectively by native chieftains, Spaniards, Americans, and now the halfcastes-in the name of local self-government and under the American flag! Although we pay lip service to local self-government, the half-caste, or his henchman, is in control throughout the villages off the islands. We can not blame him if he practices ignoble extortions in Filipino villages-if he perpetuates, for instance, the custom of the village headman spending the first night with each newly married bride. Such is his nature. We can not blame anyone but ourselves if we have put the American Governor General in such a position that he can get nothing done without licking the boots of such persons. It is our fault and only ours if so distinguished a critic as Prof. Ralston Hayden can say, "With the cooperation of an American Governor General and the approbation of an American President, the Philippines obtained practically complete autonomy under a system of government which had never been authorized or even dreamed of by Congress." III. We, through our representatives, have made many promises to the Filipinos-many of which we have broken. The last expression of the American people through Congress on the Philippines was in 1916, when we pledged ourselves to fit them for independence. It seems idle to say that Congress had no right to make such a promise, for the pledge was taken as such by the Philippines sand the world in general. Woodrow Wilson spoke truly when he said, in 1907: "We can give the FiUpinos constitutional government, a government which -they may count upon to be just, a government based upon some clear understanding, intended for their good and not for our aggrandizement; but we must 618 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS for the present supply that government. But we can not give them self-govern — ment. Self-government is not a thing which can be 'given' to any people, because it is a form of character and not of constitution. No people can be 'given' the self-control of maturity. * * * To ignore these fundamental things would be not only to fail and fail miserably, but to fail ridiculously and belie ourselves." In other words, if the Philippines are to attain independence and stand alone they must have strength in and of themselves. In the words of the old adage, they must be made healthy, wealthy, and wise. We can not make them wise, educate them as we will. We have made them healthvy, although since the Filipinization of the government it is impossible to tell whether that health has been maintained. Wealth lies within our grasp and within the sphere of our responsibility-and wealth is power, and power is independence. The wealth of the islands, like that of all tropical countries, lies in the production of those raw materials-rubber, sugar, camphor, etc.-which we of the north import in such huge quantities. The Philippines are potentially capable of producing such raw materials in imposing quantities, but in order to do so they need capital. In spite of the fact that we need many of the materials which the Philippines could produce and in spite of the fact that certain American business men have examined the islands with optimistic interest, capital has not been forthcoming. Here, again, because of the apathy of the American people, as this is represented by Congress, American capital hesitates to enter the Philippines. No one knows how long the islands are to be under our flag, and so long as the political future of the islands is so uncertain what sensible man would invest there? The laws governing capital in the Philippines and the laws restricting the ownership of land also make development extremely difficult. The Dutch, again, have a system of land laws which facilitates development and protects the natives from ruthless exploitation. But we refuse to learn from the Dutch. Congress could change this condition and so fulfill part of its promise to fit the Filipinos for independence by making them economically strong. Nothing except the overwhelming indifference of the American people stops it from repealing the preamble to the Jones law (to which the political uncertainty is due) and from enacting modern land laws. Given this policy of neglect, who can be surprised that in the last few years one American rubber company has gone to Liberia, another to Brazil, and still another to the Dutch East Indies? In spite of the fact that the Philippines could produce rubber, American business men do not dare to do business under the American flag. Look at the economic question from another angle-public revenues. The annual revenues and public expenditures in the small Japanese possession of Formosa were in a recent year greater than those in the entire Philippine Archipelago. In our Philippines the revenues have been about the same for the past three years. Yet the population is growing, and, thanks to the American tenure, so are their wants. These wants can not be satisfied in so poor a country; and this is one reason why the Philippine immigration to California is assuming noteworthy proportions. The only positive economic fact seems to be that because of us and their freetrade connection with us, their standard-and hence their cost-of living has gone up far beyond that of any of their neighbors. The point has now been reached where we have turned out crowds of American-educated natives wanting American luxuries into a land which is economically unable to support them. It is like putting a Rolls-Royce body on a Ford chassis. At present they call trade with us because they are exempt from the tariff. If they were cut loose from us they would be unable to compete with Java, British Malaya, or Indo China, where living standards are roughly only a tenth as high. We have weakened them to such a point that independence would be the most wanton cruelty. A concluding instance of what happens in the islands regardless of the nobility of our intentions is afforded by the Chinese, who are hated and feared by the Malays because when Chinese meets Malay, the Malay always comes out second best. In British Malaya, for instance, Chinese were admitted. To-day it is estimated that half the population of what was once a pure Malay region is Chinese. No wonder the Malay is glad to have the protection of the white main where the Chinese are concernedWe have an exclusion act against the entrance of Chinese into the islands, but enforcement is so lax and incompetent that to-day roughly 80 per cent of the retail trade and about 50 per cent of the wholesale import trade is in their hands. Thev can work harder and more cheaply than the lazy native. The result must INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 619 either be a pogrom of Chinese or the recession of the Malay. So it is that during 1928 and the first two months of 1929 an average of 2,120 Filipinos left every month for Hawaii and the United States, while Chinese were easily bootlegged into any one of the thousands of Philippine islands and started to breed the native out of existence. What can one say about this in the face of our responsibility to protect them? When asked this question Americans in the islands admitted that Chinese were entering and were conquering-not with guns and warships, but with their ability to intermarry. They admitted that we had not strengthened but weakened the economic condition of the Philippines. But they said that our intentions were good, that our policy was humane. With that it is difficult to disagree. Our motives may be nobler than those of the Dutch or the British or the French. But in their possessions the emphasis is placed on the day-by-day, efficient execution of their policies, such as they are. We place our emphasis on spectacular enunciation. That is why there is the same difference between the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies as there is between a neglected charitable institution and an establishment efficiently run for mutual profit. IV. If, then, we are doing the islands more harm-than good, the next question is: What good, if any, do they do us? It seems scarcely deniable that at the present time they are beneficial to us in only the most insignificant ways. They are too poor to be an important market for our manufactured goods or for our raw materials. They are so undeveloped that they can not supply us with the tropical raw materials which we buy in such enormous quantities from others. Potentially they could become both a market for our goods and a source of supply for us. But this would require action by Congress, and, owing largely to the fear that the islands might produce enough to endanger domestic producers, the chief interest Congress has taken in the islands has been unfriendly. Whoever expects Congress to take the few necessary steps for making the islands useful to us is taking a great for granted. It is frequently said that the islands are useful to us because of their nearness to the Chinese market, which, some persons say, will some day grow into an enormously rich one of great importance to our national prosperity. This, too, is uncertain; and there are plenty of students of the Orient who predict that China can never become an important consumer of American goods. The optimists, however, hold that it soon will, and that the Philippines will be invaluable to us as a trading post. If this day does come we could, to be sure, use an international port like Shanghai or a British port like Hong Kong, not to mention the Chinese ports themselves, all of which are nearer to the Chinese market than Manila, which is three days away from south China and a week away from Shanghai. But one is told that in case of war we should be "shut out of the east" without Manila-that China would be "encircled" by British, French, Dutch, and Japanese, and that our commerce could not get in. This picture of an Anglo-Franco-Dutch-Japanese alliance against us may to some seem fanciful. But even assuming that it is extremely likely, the sad fact is that with the Philippines we are in a weaker military position than we should be without them. Our naval force in Asiatic waters could be swept off the seas by the Japanese and our military forces in the islands could not withstand a determined attack by a neighboring power. While there seems to be slight possibility of a major war in the Far East, those who defend retention of the Philippines base their argument on that possibility, and for that reason it should be considered. Our naval establishment in Asiatic waters consists of 1 old cruiser, 20 destroyers, a submarine division, a mine-laying detachment, 2 aircraft squadrons, a few auxiliary vessels, and 10 gunboats, principally for police work against Chinese pirates. Honolulu, the nearest completely equipped base, is 6,000 miles away. Any fleet equipped with capital ships and supported by neighboring bases could wipe our naval force off the seas in short order or send it scurrying to cover. Our force in the east might have a momentary harassing value. It might, like the "suicide squads" of the Great War, delay the enemy advance, but that would be all. Moreover, two years would probably elapse before the United States fleet could function in Far Eastern waters with an adequate train and control force, that is to say with a force capable of supplying the fleet and of protecting effectively the long line of communication. The Army garrison, centered for the most part about Manila, consists of about 10,000 troops, most of whom are native. Their loyalty to us is not doubted; but neither was that of the native Indian troops before the Sepoy mutiny. 620 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Nearly all the officers are white. A well-supported landing force could defeat these troops and seize the great northern island of Luzon. At the entrance of Manila Bay is the island of Corregidor which is so heavily fortified that it is known as the "Gibraltar of the East." Military men have been fond of saying that, regardless of what happened, the garrison at Corregidor could hold out for a long time, as its gunfire would control any sea approach to Manila. But aviation has altered this dictum as it has altered many. Under the terms of the Washington treaty gas-proof chambers can not be built on Corregidor; and no one knows how long it could endure. But would not its very endurance create that wave of sympathy which would impel the American people to hold the Philippines at all costs? Can one not imagine the demand for the relief of the heroic little garrison? The Philippines, far from home and inadequately defended, are clearly the weakest link in our chain of national defense. Being the tender spot in our armor, it is against them that the first hostile arrow would be aimed. The result would inevitably be that we should lose the Philippines if any vigorous power wished to take it. Once our naval and military forces had been swamped, two courses would be left open to us. One would be to surrender the islands, with a view to defeating the enemy in a theater more suited to our strategic needs. The other would be to pitch right in and fight for them on the spot. The excitability of the American temperament in time of war lends color to the belief that we would demand their recovery at once and make it politically impossible for any President or for any War Department to do otherwise. The result would be the sending of an expeditionary force to the islands, which we are entirely unequipped to do both from the standpoint of men and materiel. The picture of young American men, dying from tropical diseases, in a wilderness 12,000 miles away, for a possession of questionable value to their country is not a pleasant one. V. Three salient facts with regard to our tenure of the Philippines are apparent. In the first place, we are doing the Filipinos more harm than good. Second, the Philippines at present do us more harm than good. Finally, there is virtually no prospect that Congress will take the few easy steps to strengthen the hands of American authority in the islands and make their economic development a likely prospect. What courses, then, are open to us? The answer to this question is as simple as the problem is complicated. It lies ready-made for us in the message of Theodore Roosevelt to the British on their occupation of Egypt-govern or get out. If we were to follow this maxim and compel Congress to translate it into action, the abuses which are now taking place under our flag would cease and the islands would become a source of profit to us and to the Filipinos. If we persist in doing nothing it would be better for ourselves, for the Filipinos, and for the world in general for us to get out. But this, in spite of the pretensions of "anti-imperialists," is not an easy thing to do. We can not give them independence because independence can not be given; it must be attained. If we were to cut them loose, as the late William J. Bryan suggested, they would speedily fall under the domination of a foreign financial protectorate. One can say this with some certainty, for when the Wilson policy of leaving them strictly alone was in force and the American Governor General purposely made himself into a figurehead, the Filipino politicians did not take long to come within an ace of bankrupting the government. It is suggested that we grant them independence and guarantee that independence by a treaty with the other great powers. Apart from the historical lesson that nations which can not stand by themselves do not stand at all, it should be realized that with such an arrangement the United States would be regarded as primarily responsible for protecting the islands, the other powers merely agreeing not to harm them. We should thus be in somewhat the same position of responsibility without authority in which we now have placed our"lves, with the difference that we should have no Military Establishment quartered in the islands and should have even less authority than we have at the present time. There is, besides, the constitutional point that Congress can not alienate American territory. The Philippines were not acquired by Congress, but by international treaty. There are eminent constitutional lawyers who have studied the point and who say that we can get rid of the islands only in the same way. This, and the manifest impracticality of "giving them independence," suggests turning them over to another power better equipped to govern them than are we. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 621 If we are to get rid of them, this seems like an intelligent method worthy of careful consideration. Both the outright method of cutting them loose and the guaranteeing of their independence by international treaty would be extremely disturbing to the far eastern situation, which is not very stable anyway. Moreover, the best experience through several centuries shows that the Malay, lovable as he is, is incapable of protecting himself. Throughout the East the nations of the West stand guard over him lest he be overrun by his neighbors. If we are to decide on this course the British or the Dutch or the French immediately suggest themselves as peoples with a broad experience in colonial government and won over to the humane view of colonial responsibility. But, as matters now stand, it is doubtful whether they would care to enlarge their imperial responsibilities. The sale of the islands to another far eastern power, were it to Russia or to Japan, would probably have a disquieting effect on the Western nations now in the Pacific. If Russia were to have the islands, Japan and China would raise loud cries and the rest of the world could only view with apprehension the installation of such a power in a position which offers such good opportunities for troublemaking. The sale of the islands to Japan would have a most disquieting effect on the Australians, who live in a state of perennial nervousness about Japan. It would also alarm the Dutch, who are unable to defend their own possessions without outside assistance. Politically speaking, the Orient is like a jelly-poke one part of it and it all shakes. Whoever speculates on this problem-and it must be speculation, for on this as on any other Philippine question, the United States has taken no important step-must naturally think of Germany, a nation with colonizing experience and with a surplus population ready to brave the risks of a new and distant land. For some years enlightened opinion in the allied countries has held that it would be a good thing for the peace of Europe if Germany had colonies. Putting it bluntly, this opinion has taken the view that if there were fewer Germans in Europe the chances for peace would be greater. The presence of another Teutonic power in the Far East would probably be a pacifying factor as far as the general situation is concerned. It would insure efficiency in the government of the Philippines and a realization of their great economic possibilities. Perhaps they could be sold at a nominal price with a pledge for eventual independence and the open door for the commerce of the world. Under German management the Philippines might become a field for profitable investment-both for native and for foreigner-which they certainly are not to-day. After the blood we have shed and the patriotic and distinguished service of individual Americans in the islands, it would be a painful thing for any American to see such a transfer occur. But such a transfer would be more honest and more high-principled than our present policy of allowing the islands to drift aimlessly along on a sea of false hopes and unkept pledges. Such an act on our part might be regarded by the rest of the world as a confession of our inabilityor, at the very best, our unwillingness-to cope with a problem which we had pledged our faith to solve. But such an interpretation, however unpalatable to us, would be merely the truth. In other words, if the facts are faced honestly, this seems to be our choice: to do the job well ourselves or let some one else do it as it should be done. APPENDIX L NATIONAL GREED AND THE PHILIPPINES (By Carter Field, in the Forum) I. It looks as if sugar and coconut oil may win the Philippines' battle for freedom which Auginaldo failed to accomplish by force of arms, which Bryan failed to win in apresidential campaign, and which Tammany Hall defeated in the House after the-Senate, in 1916, had voted to grant independence within four years. Six hundred thousand tons of sugar, pouring duty free into the United States this year from the islands, are spelling disaster in Cuba, where eight hundred million American dollars are invested in that one industry alone, and where an additional four hundred and fifty millions are sunk in other industries more or 921 09 ---30 —PT -7 622 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS less dependent upon the prosperity of sugar for their own dividends. They are also spelling hard times and poor prices for our own sugar-beet growers, spread over some 20 States of the Union and numerous enough in 12 of them to be a decided political factor. Last February Herbert Hoover inspected a huge sugarcane development on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, in Florida, which must now be added to Louisiana as a cane-producing State. (Indeed, sugar shared with early fruits and vegetables the responsibility for the entire Florida delegation's voting in the House for the Hawley tariff bill, although every Member from Florida was a Democrat.) Coconut oil, also flowing tax free into the United States in vast quantities, is causing the producers of cottonseed and peanut oils in the South to wonder just why the Government they are taxed to support should be so determined to retain its grip on these far-away islands, whose people fought for their independence, and who have been promised it. Powerful nations have often held far-distant peoples in subjection in order that the mother country could exploit their natural resources. Instances might be cited at length of territories held against their will because the owning country believed the possession was of great strategical value in the event of war. Nations have maintained protectorates over foreign lands so as to widen the markets for their own exports. And there are instances of nations separated from their home land by vast oceans who have nevertheless remained under the old flag because of mutual desire to continue such a relationship. But ownership of the Philippine Islands by the United States fits into none of these categories. The United States is not exploiting the Philippines. The islands have special laws directed against any such policy, enacted for the express purpose of preventing large operations by American capital. From the standpoint of national defense, the Philippines are admitted by every strategist in the Army and Navy to be a liability. Every war plan this country has contemplates their immediate abandonment, and elaborate and expensive maneuvers for their eventual recapture. As for mutual desire, the overwhelming evidence is that the hope for independence is the strongest political issue in the islands. Every politician from Luzon to Mindanao quotes Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death," when he seeks the suffrage of the natives. Therefore, the only possible argument against granting the islands independence is that Uncle Sam has shouldered a bit of the white man's burden; that the Filipinos are not capable of governing themselves; and that anarchy would rule before the last transport carrying American soldiers home was over the horizon. But when has any mother country ever conceded a subject people to be fit for self-government? What is the test, and who is to determine it? Certainly, under Governor General Francis Burton Harrison, the islands virtually governed themselves; and while it is generally admitted that the results were subject to severe criticism, there are American cities and American States whose local govern. ments the well-informed American does not care to defend. No, the fact remains that the United States has promised the islands eventual independence-to be given, presumably, when Congress shall decide that the islanders have fitted themselves for self-government without the danger of such mob violence as has brought front-page advertising to Herrin, Ill., and some of the New Jersey towns; without such wholesale graft as resulted in the parade of Indiana public officials to the penitentiary; or such mismanagement of funds as has now created a deficit of nearly $5,000,000 for the State of Georgia. II. Meanwhile, this Government is fostering a situation in the islands which will spell utter economic disaster when the day of freedom comes. It is creating a condition which will make the price of liberty so costly that the temptation will be strong for the islanders to sell their birthright. In brief, the situation is this: Although the Philippines are not regarded as a part of the United States, as Hawaii is; although the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution has not followed the flag there, it being the only territory under the American flag that is legally wet, the islands are inside the American tariff wall, which ever mounts higher and higher. Since the islands are able to pour their products into this tremendous, highly protected market duty free, they are naturally turning more and more to products which can be sold in the United States. Furthermore, desperate efforts by the American Government, through education, through payment to natives of salaries far above the old standards, and by example, have resulted in higher wage scales and better living conditions. In short, Philippine producers are being geared up to the production costs which, so long as the islands retain their free market in the United States, spell prosperity; but these same conditions will lead to economic disaster should this country INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 623 event ually carry out its promise of independence. For, as a result of the influence of the United States, the production costs of Philippine sugar and oil —in fact, everything the islands export-are far in excess of those in Java, for example, to cite the big sugar producer which will become a serious competitor to the Philippines thfe moment they are placed outside the American tariff wall. This situation was not contemplated when the islands were acquired. Like Topsy, it has "jest growed." American tariffs applied against Philippine products for years after the Spanish-American War. Originally there was a limit on the amount of sugar the islands could send to the United States. This was naturally struck out when the Underwood-Simmons bill put sugar on the free list. But it was not restored when that legislation was superseded by the Fordney-McCumber bill. There is little doubt that a limit on Philippine sugar would have been written into the Hawley-Smoot bill had not Secretary Stimson taken such a firm stand against it before the House Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Stimson made his fight in the first blush of the Hoover administration's honeymoon. He assumed a tremendous responsibility, unless one is to suppose that the pledge of eventual independence is never to be carried out. But even presuming this pledge to be a scrap of paper, and that the islands are to be retained permanently under the American flag —consider the effect of these duty-free imports from the Philippines. The stimulation of sugar production in the islands by affording them a free market in the United States is one of the reasons for the overproduction of sugar in the last few years. And the distress in Cuba at the present moment is due directly to this world overproduction of sugar. The friends of Cuba point out that this little country has a real grievance against the United States in that our Government, during the war, did everything possible to boost sugar production, while the Cuban Government consented to a price far below what could have been obtained. They also point out that since the war, Porto Rico, with no tariff barrier against her, has been turned into a gigantic sugar and tobacco plantation. The one favored spot in the world, as they view it, lies in the Philippines. Not only do those islands boast cheap land and fertile soil, a tropic sun and plenty of rain, but they can send their sugar through Uncle Sam's customhouses without paying one cent of duty. Meanwhile, American investors in Cuba are going without dividends and worrying about their principal. Only one beet sugar company in this country admits making any profits, and Louisiana complains bitterly. Compared to the sugar producers, much less has been heard, so far, from the producers of vegetable oil; but this interest ramifies amazingly when one counts up soybeans, peanuts, and cotton. There are other tariff angles also, which sooner or later will add their weight to the political pressure which is surging up behind the sentimental appeal to grant independence. For example, there is a strong movement now under way in the South to educate the cotton farmers to favor a tariff on jute. Experts on this subject estimate that a prohibitive tariff against jute would increase the consumption of cotton about a million and a half bales a year. But a prohibitive schedule against the product would not bar it if shipped from the Philippines. III. Few now recall by what a narrow margin the Filipino independence agitators failed to attain their goal in 1916. Actually, the controversy iii Washington at the time was so heated that it became one of the reasons why Lindley M. Garrison resigned as Secretary of War. But that whole fight was blanketed by the war news from Europe, by Woodrow Wilson's "preparedness" drive in the interests of which he was then touring the country, by the Lusitania correspondence with Germany, and by developments in the 1916 presidential campaign. But on February 8, 1916, the United States Senate voted to give the Philippines absolute independence on a day to be fixed by the President "not less than two nor more than four years after the approval of this act." This was the then famous Clarke amendment to the Jones bill, which itself rather nebulously promised eventual independence. On April 26 of that year President Wilson urged the Democrats of the House to concur in this action, stating that after careful consideration it seemed to be in the best interests of the public "that the Senate bill ought to be adopted, and I sincerely hope for its adoption." The Preisdent's letter containing these words was read to the caucus of the Democrats of the House by Representative William A. Jones, of Virginia, author of the Jones bill and chairman of the House Committee on Insular Affairs. Despite Wilson's appeal, 30 Democrats, of whom 15 were Tammany men and the rest more or less closely affiliated with them in political strategy, bolted the Democratic caucus. Bitter attacks by Republican Senate and House leaders on what they termed a "scuttle" policy held every 624 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Republican in the House in line against the amendment, and it was defeated 213 to 165. The truth is that the sentiment for giving the islands their independence was much greater at that time than was indicated by the votes of either the Senate or the House. In the Senate the amendment of Senator Clarke passed, by a vote of 41 to 41, with Vice President Marshall deciding the tie in favor of independence. But many Senators supporting independence did not vote for it. The actual sentiment of the Senate was revealed much more accurately a few minutes later, when Senator Lippitt, of Rhode Island, attempted to send the bill back to committee for revamping. This was defeated 50 to 29. Then, after clearing away the objections of some of the Senators to any guaranty of Philippine independence after our Government's withdrawal, and of others to language about retaining a naval base, a final test on the Clarke amendment was made. Enough Senators changed their votes so that the amendment was approved 48 to 27. The sentiment for giving the islands their independence was understated in the House's vote because of an intense desire on the part of the Republican leaders to maintain party regularity on the eve of a presidential campaign. Thus, while the elder La Follette voted for independence in the Senate, not one of the 11 Republicans of Wisconsin did so in the House. While William E. Borah voted for the Clarke amendment in the Senate, the Idaho Republicans in the House followed their party leaders. IV. At the present moment the curious thing to note about this movement for giving the Philippines their independence 14 years ago is the fact that at that time there was no selfish motive inspiring any group or interest to favor it. It is true that Chairman Jones made out a case that the islands were costing the Federal Treasury some $50,000,000 a year; but there is no indication that a desire to save the Government's money influenced a single vote in favor of the Clarke amendment. But conditions have changed amazingly since then. To the sentimental appeal that we should free the islands because we promised to do so, has now been added a mercenary plea. The Filipino politicos, who for 30 years have demanded independence in vain, now suddenly finds themselves with a host of allies in the United States whose pocketbook ner ves are affected. As recently as last March the ground was already being cultivated for the next move. Senator King, of Utah, introduced a resolution which requested the President of the United States to enter upon negotiations with Great Britain, France, and Japan with a view to guaranteeing the independence of the islands after they have been granted self-government. In a speech on his resolution, Senator King made the following declaration: "There never has been a time since the American military forces landed upon Philippine soil that the Filipinos were willing to be an American colony or even an American State. They have desired to be free and independent; they have had confidence in their ability to govern themselves and to maintain an independent and sovereign state, possessing a liberal form of government and adequate to protect its people and discharge its international obligations. I believe that a majority of the American people regarded the Jones Act as a solemn pledge upon the part of the American people to grant independence to the Filipinos." All of this, with its appeal to national honor and good faith, smacks very much of the political oratory of 1916. But those observers who may have guessed that there were deeper forces at work behind the present movement than appeared on the surface, were confirmed in their opinion by a sudden turn of events in the Senate on October 9, 1929. Significantly enough, the new movement for Philippine independence popped up its head in the midst of a debate on the tariff. Senator Broussard, of Louisiana, proposed an amendment to the tariff bill calling for a tariff on Philippine exports to the United States, and authorizing the President to summon an international conference of Pacific powers to draw up a guaranty of the islands' independence. Immsdiately Senator King offered a substitute amendment granting Philippine independence after the islands had organized a government. Two hours of wrangling followed, during which Senator Bingham, of Connecticut-chairman of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs-promised to introduce, in the next regular session, a resolution which will give Congress an opportunity to vote on Philippine independence apart from other issues. With this general understanding, a vote was taken on the King amendment, and it was defeated 45 to 36. It was apparent that this vote in no way reflected the real strength of the forces now working to free the islands. As soon as the result was announced Senator Robinson, who had voted for the King amendment, and Senator Borah, who had voted against it-although he is known to favor Philippine independ INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 625 ence-said that the outcome could not be taken as an expression of the Senate's real feeling. It merely meant, they said, that the Senate refused to entangle the Philippine question with the tariff issue; and they predicted that the vote would be different when the bill to grant the islands their freedom comes up for consideration alone. It begins to look, therefore, as if the Filipino's 30-year fight for independence may at last be crowned with success. The old sentimental appeal, fostered by Bryan and encouraged by Wilson, is still far from dead. This is proved by the Atlanta Constitution's reference in a recent editorial to "the stigma of refusing freedom to a conquered people whom we do not want as citizens, but whose wealth we covet for American commercial exploiters." To this sentimental appeal is now added a selfish interest of which there was not a trace when Tammany's bolt killed the Clarke amendment in 1916. "The next regular session" in which Senator Bingham promised to introduce his test resolution meets in December, 1929, and-t remains to be seen whether our national greed will at last accomplish what our national honor has so long demanded in vain. APPENDIX M PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE STILL LOOMING As ISSUE-IF UNITED STATES SHOULD RELINQUISH ISLANDS POLITICAL BALANCE OF WORLD LIKELY WOULD BE UPSET (By Mark Sullivan) We are going to hear very shortly a good deal about the Philippines and the Filipinos, more than we have heard at any time since we first became acquainted with them in the three years from 1898 to 1901-at which time we heard more about them than about any one other topic, because the Philippines, together with our other heritage from the Spanish-American War, Porto Rico, constituted the leading issue in the presidential election of 1900. We are going to hear about them very soon because the question of their independence is more important than at any time since we first took possession of them. To say that the "question of their independence" is imminent is not necessarily to say that their independence is imminent. The matter may be decided one way or the other. All that is here asserted is that the question, as a question, is knocking at the doors of Congress for decision more vigorously than at any time during 30 years. HOUSE BLOCKED INDEPENDENCE This is a strong assertion, because there was at least one time, in 1916, when the question seemed very imminent indeed. On that occasion the Senate, by a majority of 1 vote, actually passed a resolution which would have made the Philippines independent, and only the reluctance of the House prevented the resolution from'taking effect. As it was, on that occasion, August 29, 1916, Congress went so far as to pass the4 Jones Act, the preamble of which declares that "It has always been the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable form of government can be established therein." From time to time since then the question whether "a stable form of government" has or has not been established in the Philippines has come to the front. But never has decision on that question, or on the whole question of independence for the Philippines, been so clamorous as now. The reason for the present imminence of the problem is that Filipino independence has, for the first time, and rather suddenly, become involved with the question of immigration into the United States. And immigration is a topic which forces its own way; on no other subject is Congress so quick to take notice. Congress is quick to take notice, and as a rule the almost equally prompt action of Congress is to take the step which will limit immigration. RAMIFICATIONS FAR-REACHING The relation of the Philippines to the United States is one of the largest questions in the whole field of American statesmanship. It has extremely farreaching ramifications. Many thoughtful persons feel that abandonment of the Philippines by us would be an international disaster. Without doubt it would 626 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS give an altered direction to history in the Far East, yet it is quite possible we may shortly decide this question on one aspect alone. Retirement by us from the Philippines would be apt to give a considerable tilt to the present balance of the world, none too stable at best. Would there be a psychological influence on England in India? On France in Indo-China? IMMIGRATION ANGLE INTRODUCED The Philippines as a subject involving immigration was introduced into Congress quite formidably one day last week by Senator Tydings, of Maryland. There are not many Filipinos in Maryland (unless an occasional Filipino servant on a war vessel at Annapolis). Senator Tydings, however, is a Democrat, and the Democrats have a party tradition that causes them to incline toward Filipino independence. Last week Senator Tydings disavowed taking a decisive position on the broad question "whether or not the Philippines should or should not be given their independence." But he said, accurately, that "the question of Philippine independence is one that is coming to the fore in this country." His particular reason, and the particular aspect of the Philippines that he brought forward is the presence of some 60,000 Filipinos in the United States, and their increase at a rate which is reckoned as 12,000 a year. Practically all these Filipinos, Senator Tydings said, "have settled in the Western States; in Oregon, Washington, California, where they are trying to make a livelihood." These three States are on the Pacific coast, a whole continent in distance from Maryland. But it was Senator Tydings whose interest led him to bring up at great length the matter of race "riots" on the Pacific coast, due to the presence of the Filipinos. He put it on the ground of the broad interest that the whole Nation has in the presence, in America, of races which are not assimilable, and therefore give rise to problems. "Shall we," he asked, "permit Filipinos to come and settle in our country and inject, perhaps, another stream of racial discord to those streams which are already loose in the United States?" FILIPINOS HAVE RIGHT TO BE HERE The point made by Senator Tydings is obvious to everybody. So long as the Philippines belong to America Filipinos appear to have an unrestricted right to come here in as large numbers as they please. The total number of Filipinos is 13,000,000, and they, said Senator Tydings, "can come into this country whenever they see fit." If we should give the Philippines their independence, they would then be a foreign nation. Thereafter, we could set up against the Philippines any barrier cf immigration we choose. We could set up against them the same barrier of absolute exclusion which we have set up against other Asiatics. "It is absolutely illogical," said Senator Tydings, "to exclude Japanese and Chinese and permit Filipinos en masse to come into the country. If we are going to be absolutely forthright about this proposition, if Filipino immigration means nothing, then we should take down the bars and let the Chinese and Japanese come in as well. * * * On the other hand, if we feel that it is not wise to mix up the various races, we should give this phase of Philippine independence careful and serious consideration." Senator Tydings read extensive newspaper accounts chiefly from newspapers on the Pacific coast, having such characteristic headlines as "Labor Union Here Opposed to Filipinos." "Filipinos Here Are Warned to Leave," Filipino Labor Competition Blamed for Series of Riots," "Orientals Will Contract to Do Two Jobs for Wages of One." ORIENTAL OBJECTION VIGOROUS Upon introduction of the subject by Senator Tydings, of Maryland, Senator Johnson, of California, took notice of the allusion to his home State. He rather deplored the use of the word "riots" as being too strong. And he was emphatic in saying that the State of California is abundantly able to take care of the rights of both Filipinos and whites. Nevertheless, Senator Johnson-with some apparent reluctance-admitted that "It is quite true a situation is developing in reference to Filipino laborers on the west coast that may ultimately become more or less menacing * * *. Of course, something must be done. Whether the difficulty can be met by granting Filipino independence I do not know." Historic precedents would seem to suggest that whenever California or the west coast generally wants something done about Oriental immigration it be INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 627 comes pretty earnest on the point-and ultimately gets the exclusion that it desires. It is just short of 50 years since California made up its mind to exclude the Chinese, and succeeded in having the exclusion brought about, although the rest of the country was dubious, both about the exclusion and about the means through which California achieved it. And it is just about 25 years since the Pacific coast made up its mind it wanted to limit and later to prohibit Japanese immigration-and ultimately the Pacific coast was as successful on this point as it had been about the Chinese. OSIAS RECALLS PLACARDS Incidentally, the Delegate in Congress from the Philippines, Mr. Osias, contributed a bit of information which is likewise faithful to the precedent of history. He explained the principal reasons why Filipinos are coming to our Pacific coast in unusual numbers just now. "The American shipping interests are placarding the entire Philippines with the allurements of this country. These advertisements are being translated into the different Philippine languages and seek to depict this country as the land of opportunity. In response to the propaganda of these interests, Filipinos have come in great numbers. * * * I do not know that the Filipinos are to blame. We are living under the United States flag; we have been enticed by alluring advertisements presenting this country as a land of golden opportunity. * * * The only proper remedy to this and allied problems lies in granting us complete independence." It was the steamship companies wanting passenger fares, together with some American business desiring cheap labor, that had a large hand in bringing to America, between 20 and 40 years ago, the large numbers of immigrants whose presence ultimately caused us to adopt our immigration restriction policy with respect to Europe. WOULD JAPAN GET CONTROL? Whether or not it is desirable to divest ourselves of the Philippines and give them independence is one of the major problems of American statesmanship. It has angles that are practically never mentioned in the present debates in Congress. What would become of the Philippines? Is it certain they could or would remain independent? Would they ultimately drift toward Japan? If we should withdraw our sovereignty from' the Philippines would we at the same time and to the same extent curtail our naval interests in the Pacific Ocean? If it were known definitely that America will withdraw from the Philippines what effect would that knowledge have upon the Naval Conference now under way in London? If we should withdraw from the Far East would Japan and Great Britain, together or separately, regard themselves as faced with increased responsibilities in that quarter of the world? Without any doubt there are delicate aspects to this question, but these aspects are not being considered in Congress. For the moment, or at least very soon, it seems that Filipino immigration alone will become the largest single factor in driving us to a decision about Filipino independence. Immigration is the most action provoking subject with which the question of Philippine independence could be involved. Last summer, in the Senate, Philippine independence was involved in the farm problem, and six important farm and dairy organizations demanded that we set the Philippines free; the motive was frankly selfish. TARIFF, NOT ALTRUISM, FARM OBJECTIVE From the Philippines come certain products, chiefly fats, which compete with some American farm and dairy products. Also from the Philippines comes sugar, which competes with American beet sugar. Because the Philippines are under the American flag her products come here free of tariff duty. The farm organizations and their representatives in the Senate demanded independence for the Philippines-not for the sake of the Philippines, and not for any altruistic motive, but wholly in order that we might be able to set up a tariff against their products. To the Senate, hard-boiled as it is, the proposition put so baldly, seemed a little "raw." The Senate, oi at least a sufficient number of the Senate to be decisive, did not quite like to have it said in history that America set the Philippines free wholly as an incident of a tariff debate. The tariff was able to make this question fairly imminent. Immigration will make it much more imminent. 628 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS PRESENT STATUS BAR " UNFAIR ' There are many angles to the question and many differing proposals. There is one bill which would exclude the Filipinos as immigrants, while continuing to keep the islands as part of our territory and while making no change in their status. "If that bill passes," says the Filipino Delegate, Mr. Osias, "it will be a great injustice. The remedy is to see that the American-Philippine question be immediately brought before Congress for final solution. The only proper remedy * * * lies in granting us complete independence." Senator King of Utah has a proposal which would declare the Philippines independent forthwith. Representative Nelson of Wisconsin has a bill looking to a commission of nine Americans and nine Filipinos, who would study all the problems involved and make recommendations to the United States Congress and the Filipino Legislature. Senator Bingham of Connecticut has a somewhat similar proposal for a commission. Senator Vandenberg of Michigan has a bill looking to a kind of gradual and experimental independence. It proposes quasiindependence for a probationary period. It would set up a Commonwealth of the Philippines, with immediate political and economic autonomy, which would last, as an experiment for 10 years. If the experiment should be successful, the United States would withdraw and make the Philippines finally independent in 1940. ISLAND ROMANCE MOVED POETS Who can remember when the Philippines were in the beginning, at once a romantic adventure and a political problem (and also a very trying problem for the Supreme Court)? When a distinguished Kansas poet, Eugene Ware, wrote and literally every one of us sang: "Oh, dewy was the morning Upon the 1st of May, And Dewey was the admiral Down in Manila Bay. " Who can remember when William H. Taft called the Filipinos "our little brown brothers" and American soldiers (then dressed in blue) sang: "He may be a brother of big Bill Taft, But he ain't no friend of mine." When Kipling wrote and everybody repeated: "Take up the white man's burden; Send for the best ye breed * * * To wait in heavv harness On fluttering folk and wild." When the leading issue of a presidential campaign was" expansion," as the Republicans called it, or "imperialism" or "'militarism," as Bryan and the Democrats called it? When Admiral Coghlan (of Dewey's fleet) returned from Manila and recitedand we all recited after him-a ditty entitled "Hoch! Der Kaiser, " beginning: "Der Kaiser of dis Faterland Und Gott on High all dings command, Ve two-ach! Don't you understand? Myself-und Gott. When a leading issue of presidential campaign was suggested in the sloganaffirmed by one party, queried by the other-"The Constitution follows the flag." And the Supreme Court decided it did not, and Mr. Dooley said that "anyhow, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." One wonders if that whole American adventure is to be ended, permanently. APPENDIX N MoRos DEMAND AMERICAN RULE [Article in the New York Herald Tribune, of Sunday, October 27, 1929] Moros, oppressed by Filipinos, demand American rule, former Manila editor reports. Open revolt feared should United States withdraw. Massacre, graft, pillage characterized Luzon administration, is charge. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 629 On the shoulders of half a dozen young Americans, underpaid third lieutenants in the Mindanao constabulary, rests to-day the burden of maintaining tranquillity among the 800,000 natives of the Moro Province and of fending off the constant threats of oppression by their hereditary enemies, the Filipinos. That the peace existing at the moment is merely transitory and seems pointed toward collapse, with the prospect of a full restoration of the Filipinos to power under the Moros, is the doleful prediction voiced by Hiram Merriman, whose picture of conditions in Mindanao reveals for the first time in vivid detail the harassments and atrocities visited by the Filipinos on the Moros during the years when Washington permitted them to swoop down upon Mindanao with unchecked power. PROMISES DISCOURAGE MOROS Mr. Merriman is a former editor of the Manila Free Press. He recently passed several months in making a thorough study of conditions in Mindanao. He has searched the archives. He has had the confidence of American officers and has interviewed innumerable Moros. The story he relates of massacres, graft, pillage, and enslavement is an account that seethes with impressive detail and which he gives in support of his insistence that the threatened resumption of Filipino rule over the Moros must bring open rebellion. He portrays the Moro as at last discouraged with American promises of protection, of having become convinced that with the death of General Leonard Wood, their "Apo," or friend, there departed the one hope of rescue from the yoke imposed by the Filipino. With the Manila politico swiftly reinforcing the Filipino's grip on Mindanao and with discouraged American members of the constabulary gradually leaving the service, Mr. Merriman points to an early day when plunder and oppression again will be the Moro's lot. TAXES RAISED, BRIBES COMPELLED With the leave-taking of the American officers some years ago, first for the Mexican border and later for the European war, it became necessary to intrust the government of the Province to Filipinos. "Down came the Filipino carpet-bagger," says Mr. Merriman. Taxes were raised, sometimes 500 per cent. The triumphant interlopers sought to make the life of the Moro miserable. Lands and cattle were stolen. Bribes were compelled. Children were made to attend Filipino schools. Girl pupils were attacked by Filipino teachers. The Moro constabulary was disbanded. Armed companies of Filipinos were sent in. Families were killed at the whim of a Filipino lieutenant. Complaints to Manila were suppressed. Mindanao, in the southern Philippines, is the second island in the archipelago Its area is 40,000 square miles. It has a population of 800,000, who are followers of Mahomet. It has been called by many the richest undeveloped land in the Tropics. American capital is being sent in. Within two decades, Mr. Merriman predicts, American plantations will cover the island. COURAGEOUS FIGHTERS Mr. Merriman describes the Moro as a courageous fighter. For generations his chief occupation had been warfare. The bravery of American soldiers, tested in jungle battle, won their respect. The Moro, General Pershing reported after eight years of contact, "possesses a strong and virile personality, which, unfettered by superstition and directed into civilized channels, would eventually make him dominant. Given lasting peace and the guidance of modern methods, he would soon crowd the Filipino for agricultural supremacy. The higher types of Moros are warm in their personal friendships and seldom break a promise." On the other hand the Filipino, says Mr. Merriman, is shiftless and unstable. Mr. Merriman describes the Moro as a capable farmer whose cultivated lands, albeit his tools are primitive, compare well with our own acres of the Middle West. He toils in the field from sunup to dark. IRRECONCILABLE ENEMIES "The natural feeling between the Moro and the Filipino," General Pershing has written, "is one of antipathy and hatred founded upon religious and racial strife extending over hundreds of years. The Filipino regards the Moro as a barbarian or savage. The Moro thinks the Filipino an inferior, fit only to be a slave. They are irreconcilable enemies." 630 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. Merriman says the Filipino is pliant, small, weak in body and unthinkingly cruel. The Moro, he says, is straight, upstanding, proud, independent, looks you in the eye and bows to nobody. He fights in the open, man to man, scorning to attack from ambush. In contrast, Mr. Merriman recalls the massacre of a company of American soldiers at Balangiga a quarter of a century ago. They were set upon by a hundred natives, dressed as women, who had induced the troops to stack their arms while these "women " went to church. They attacked the Americans at breakfast, slashing the defenseless troops with their terrific bolos, knives sometimes reaching two feet long. Most of the 78 soldiers were slaughtered. GENERAL WOOD SENT TO MINDANAO Following his historic achievements in Cuba, General Wood was sent by President Roosevelt to organize Mindanao. His emissaries failed to induce the Moros to make peace with the Americans. The Moros wanted fight. They got it. The Americans devastated the Moros' cottas, or forts, survived the perils of jungle fighting, and won out. Pershing, then a captain, drove his men through the mountainous subprovince of Lanao, performing a necessary task. As first civil governor of the Moro Province, General Wood worked unceasingly for peace and progress, from 1902 to 1906. The officers of his staff remained with him for years, following him to Washington and even returning with him when General Wood was made Governor General of the Philippines. Theirs was a slow, steady, but kindly campaign to induce the Moro to discard his suspicions and replace them with trust. TURNED OVER TO ENEMIES The Moros turned in their weapons. A constabulary, officered by Americans, was created from among their numbers. Tribal courts were established under American supervision. During the administration of President Wilson, Gov. Gen. Francis Burton Harrison, then being in Manila, "the government of the Philippines was turned over to the untrained Filipinos," says Doctor Merriman. "In this wholesale abandonment of our duties to the Filipinos, of our selfimposed task of teaching them modern ways, the Moros were included," he reports. "They were turned over to their hated enemies. The Americans who knew conditions in Mindanao protested and were turned out of the government by order of the Manila politicos." PERSHING'S WARNING RECALLED Mr. Merriman recalls General Pershing's comment that very few of the Filipinos in Mindanao "desire a government administered by the class of Filipino who would rule" if Filipino government over the Moro Province were proclaimed, most of the Filipinos in the province "recalling too vividly the outrages perpetrated by Filipino officials during their short period of control immediately preceding American occupation of this island." General Pershing was impelled to warn that "any attempt at Filipino Government would lead only to rebellion and disaster." The Mexican border and the World War took away the great majority of American officers from Mindanao. Hundreds of Filipino officeholders were sent in. TAXES HEAVILY INCREASED To pay these newcomers, Moro public funds were taken over in toto. Under American administration less than one-eighth was used for salaries. The Filipinos raised the proportion to 75 per cent. Lands were confiscated right and left. In the Filipinos schools the Moro children were compelled to undergo instruction in an alien religion. "The Filipino," says Mr. Merriman, "applied the system of graft that he had observed for many generations under Spanish dominion. The Moro was helpless. His complaints were tried before Filipino courts, through Filipino interpreters, with Filipino prosecutors. He had no resource. Long since he had yielded his arms. "At Ganassi, near the southern end of Lake Lanao," goes on Mr. Merriman, "was posted Lieutenant Tejero, 'the butcher.' Two Moro datus withdrew their daughters from school after the children had been subjected to indignities. Lieutenant Tejero executed the datus. He ordered the Moros to send 500 INDEICt O P Po fP3lE P lirPPME ISLANDS 6S3 children to school. The Sultan of Tugaya advised him there were not that many children. The infuriated 'butcher' killed more than 50 men, women and children in Tugaya in a day. UNARMED DATUS MASSACRED "For three years he held ruthless sway. The climax of a dozen massacres came at a conference with unarmed datus. As the datus entered a schoolhouse, 'the butcher' ordered his men to shoot through the windows. Every datu, bent opn seeking peace, was slain. Over the schoolhouse during this treachery floated the American flag. With the appearance of General Wood as chief executive, Tejero was driven from the constabulary. But he is still in Lanao, on a homestead seized from a Moro. His underling, Lieutenant Mercado, had accused a Moro farmer of petty theft. A squad of soldiers shot the farmer to death as he plowed in the field. Wis head was cut off and planted on a pole where the public might see it. Mercado has been transferred from Lanao, but is still in the constabulary. "Lieutenant Rivera, at Cotabato and at Malaban, made a small fortune in graft, and was arrested only because he started swindling his own countrymen. He was sent to prison. 1,500 SLAIN IN SIX YEARS "Some of these circumstances became known, in a small way, in Manila: An American commission investigated and came upon abundant evidence of oppression and atrocites. The investigators discovered that if a native were slain, the event was reported as 'another Moro outlaw caught.' But the casualty reports began to tell a different story. They would show 50 Moro dead and an unscathed constabulary. "From 1919 to 1925, until the American again received a measure of authority, about 1,500 men, or 5 per cent of the adult males of Lanao, were murdered. One-third of the entire constabulary of the Philippines was stationed in Mindanao. Filipino officers elsewhere in the archipelago clamored for transfer to defenseless Mindanao to win a 'battle' and become eligible for rapid promotion MOROS OPPOSE INDEPENDENCE "In 1921 General Wood toured the islands with former Gov. Gen. W. Cameron Forbes to determine the fitness of the Filipinos for independence. They questioned many Moros. But the questions and answers were made through Filipino datus. The Wood-Forbes commission reported the Moros unanimous against independence and united in demanding American control insisting that if the Philippines were to be separated from the United States the Moro Province be retained under American control. "The Filipinos punished the datus who protested to the investigators. Near Tamparan the constabulary placed three datus and a woman in a schoolhouse. They were beaten with gun butts and told to gaze upon the American flag flying on the building. Four datus who had testified against the Filipinos were invited to a conference near Tugaya. They were guaranteed safe conduct. But they were shot down as soon as they approached. MASSACRE ANSWER TO PETITION "The Moros of Tugao, home of one of these victims, petitioned the governor for the punishment of the slayers. The answer was a massacre of 51 persons in a raid by the constabulary. On market day in Lampasan the constabulary swooped down on the crowd, singled out four who had testified before General Wood, and killed them. At Malundu 31 were murdered. "Amai Binaning, an influential Lanao datu, had had the hardihood to complain to General Wood against oppression by the Filipinos. General Wood had dissuaded him from launching a rebellion. One morning a group of Filipinos shot Binaning and six of his family to death in their home. The report read that 'seven outlaws had been run down by the constabulary.' WOOD REMOVES PROSECUTOR "Even the Filipinos could not stifle the protest made by Amai Binaning's uncle, the Lanao chieftain, Amai Manibilang, staunch friend of the American executive for two decades. His complaint went to General Wood, who ordered the constabulary to investigate. The head of the constabulary was a Filipino. tHe ordered a whitewash. Lieutenant Nunag, chief accused, was interpreter. 632 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS "The whitewash brought on disaffection approaching rebellion. General Wood was certain the facts had not been brought out. He asked Col. George T. Langhorne to investigate. The inquiry showed Nunag's guilt. The case went before a Filipino judge, with a Filipino prosecutor. The latter neglected to call the principal witnesses, Moros. He moved to dismiss. General Wood assigned an American lawyer as prosecutor. Nunag eventually was convicted and sentenced to 14 years. "General Wood returned to the United States. He died in 1927. The Filipino secretary of justice transferred the judge who had sentenced Nunag and replaced him with a pliant jurist. A new trial freed Nunag. The Filipinos, emboldened by this proof of the strength of their politicians, brought the Moros a step nearer revolt. MOROS RISE AGAINST OPPRESSORS "The Moros came to the breaking point now that they believed they had been abandoned by the Americans. Senate President Quezon, guarded by Filipino soldiers with bayoneted guns, announced at Dansalan, capital of Lanao, that the American flag shortly would leave Mindanao and the Moros be placed under Filipino dominance for all time. "The constabulary was increased. Constabulary and Filipino civilians loosed all restraint. Graft was the order of the day. Killings increased until no Moro, even the most peaceful, was safe. Here and there the Moros challenged the Filipino guns and died. Before long a torch was lit which kindled into a flame. A constabulary lieutenant and a Filipino teacher, with 11 other oppressors, were killed in the fall of 1923 by a Moro band headed by Datu Santiago, who was held in respect by the American authorities. LINED UP AND SHOT "Santiago had rendered great service in his district to the American Government in the pacification period. The Filipino constabulary lieutenant was I. D. Magno. He had ordered one of the most cold-blooded massacres of the many that had stained the Filipino record. "The provincial governor had drawn regulations on the carrying of krisses by the Moros. One was that they could carry them to market, provided the knives were left outside the market while trading. Later the deputy governor prohibited the Moros from wearing krisses in town. A group of Santiago's men had gone to market with their krisses, unaware of these contradictory regulations. "Magno seized the weapons and told the owners to come forward and claim them. They came out of the crowd, were lined up, and shot. Santiago and his men, at a schoolhouse, killed Magno, School Supervisor Bayot, two teachers and nine soldiers. The Moro band fled to the mountains. They were joined by several hundred others and the Moro world was almost aflame. WOOD VISITS SANTIAGO'S CAMP "The frightened Filipino soldiers erected barbed-wire entanglements around their camps. Politicians in Manila clamored for revenge. Governor Guttierrez, Filipino chief executive at Cotabato, telegraphed for 12 companies of constabulary to start a wholesale campaign. Governor General Wood ordered the Filipino bureau chiefs to curb their underlings. He hurried to Mindanao. Four Americans, his assistants, went unarmed through the jungle, found Santiago's camp and tried to induce him to surrender. "Santiago replied: 'I have not eaten in two days. The first Filipino I see I shall kill and eat. The Filipinos can not govern themselves. How can they expect to govern us, who are superior to them? No people has suffered like the Moros under the Filipinos. If they continue to rule, all Moros will wish to die rather than give in to them. Why did the Americans turn us over to them after disarming us?' MORO LEADER SURRENDERS "Santiago agreed to remain in his stronghold and not foray into the settled sections. Companies of Filipinos were sent against him, but the weak, frightened Filipinos failed to get anywhere near his camp. It was not until the next year, when an American was named Governor of Lanao, that Santiago voluntarily surrendered and went to prison. "General Wood appointed a commission under Colonel Langhorne to take testimony throughout the Moro country. A great mass of evidence of Filipino INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 633:graft and brutality was collected. The commission concluded that the most critical period in 15 years had arrived and that it was the almost unanimous desire of the Moros for the return of American Government. "One witness, Clayton Douglas, American teacher at Lumbatan, said, 'I was notified there were no pupils in one of my schools at Tubaran. I went there. Lieutenant Tando and 25 men of the constabulary came. Tando, who was deputy governor, sent for the datus. All obeyed except Datu Kali, who said he was no outlaw. He sent word he would not come because several relatives had been killed at Tugaya by the Filipino soldieis. But, he said, he would receive Tando at his home. DISIS SSED TEACHER RESTORED "'I went to Lumbatan with a note to Major Santos, the governor, a Filipino, stating this man had not yet come to time. He went with 40 men to the datu's house. The datu had fled. His house was burned down and his cattle driven off. Kali announced he would be an outlaw from then on. "'I have heard Lieutenants Tando and Alagar say that if the Filipinos get independence, they will exterminate the Moros."' Mr. Merriman goes on to record that because of his testimony, pressure was exerted to have Douglas transferred. The pressure succeeded, but General Wood restored him. Mr. Merriman quotes this testimony of Datu Diamlag before the Langhorne commission. MOROS IN DESPAIR "Tando was at a market in Bayan. He found people from Tugaya selling bolos. They told him they didn't know the governor had prohibited their sale, and after taking their bolos Tando killed four men." Datu Manibilang testified: "Lanao was peaceful while the Americans were here. When they left Lanao got worse. After the Wood-Forbes Commission was here in 1921, 12 datus were killed. The Moros are losing hope. The people are in despair. I want the administration here to be in the hands of the Americans, and my life then will not be in danger." The testimony of dozens of datus, sultans, and caliphs was of similar trend, according to Mr. Merriman, all insistent on American rule and determined against Filipino supervision. General Wood sent another investigator, Maj. Charles E. Livingston, to Lanao. Major Livingston reported his visit to a cotta at Tatayauan sheltering 150 Moros and another at Maciu manned by 75. He said none of these men had committed depredations, but had armed against oppression. He induced Datu Pata to remove the battle flag from another cotta of 40 armed Moros. Governor Santos and Lieutenant Ramos wanted to attack the cotta. FILIPINOS BREAK THEIR WORD Datu Pata meanwhile pulled down the battle flag, promising to desist from violence and urged that the constabulary be held off. But though the Filipinos pledged their word to withhold attack, they killed Datu Pata and 34 of his followers, said the major's report, using grenades and tear gas, shooting down the Moros as they ran from the fort. The Moros had no firearms, only blade weapons, spears made of bamboo and six old 6-pound Spanish culverins. "Ten Moro wounded were mutilated," said the report to General Wood, "There was no necessity for killing these 35 Moros. They had committed no depredations other than the reported cutting of telephone lines. Their only crime was that they would not be governed by the Filipinos and they took the only means they knew of to show they preferred to die rather than to submit to Filipino rule. Their deaths could have been prevented by friendly conferences, by great care in the movement of troops and by putting in American officials whom they want and taking out Filipino officials whom they do not want." GOVERNMENT BANK LOOTED Governor General Wood, observes Mr. Merriam, could only remove Governor Santos from the Province. Santos was transferred to a desk in Manila. Mr. Merriam says further: "Manila politicians, headed by Senate President Quezon, shouted to high heaven that the militaristic governor general was taking a backward step and punishing Filipinos because they stood up for their own people. 634 IN'DEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS "General Wood meanwhile was patiently trying to solve the perplexing problem. Almost alone he had the task of running the Philippine government and combating self-seeking Filipino politicians. He found the government bank had been looted by the leaders of the Nacionalitia party. Some $38,000,000 had been lost. Officers of the institution and department heads were sent to prison, but the money was gone. Every department of the government was in chaos. The M{oros were on the brink of revolt. CHECKMATED BY LEGISLATURE General Wood did not at once on his arrival remove the Filipino officials responsible for Moro oppression because he did not have the authority to name Americans to these posts nor money to pay them. All appointments have to be confirmed by the Filipino Senate, which is nominated by Quezon. The legislature alone can appropriate money for salaries and other government expenses. Repeatedly it turned down his requests for money to hire civilian assistants. He could get only the aid of four Army officers sent by the War Department. "In March, 1924, 500 Moro datus and other leaders made their last reckless gesture of defiance, marching with krisses in fighting formation into Dansalan, provincial capital, amid a dead silence, to the Filipino military post at Camp Keithley. The freightened Filipino commander appealed to Major Livingston. LIVINGSTON RESTORES PEACE "Unarmed, Major Livingston went among the Moros and induced them to leave. They shouted, 'Unless an American is appointed Governor of Lanao we intend to kill or be killed. We have reached the end." That night General Wood appointed Major Livingston as Governor of Lanao. "During the year Livingston was Governor not one Moro was killed by the Filipino constabulary. Filipino politics boiled. Bribery of Moros was attempted but failed in attempts to bring charges against the governor. "The next legislature disapproved Livingston's appointment. When it adjourned, Major Johnson was named by General Wood. His was a hard job, but he was progressing well when the worst blow of all came. the death of General Wood. The legislature then disapproved the appointment of Major Johnson. The drums of Filipino hatred began to beat for new revenge on the Moros." JUNIOR OFFICERS MAKE FINE RECORD However much it is shamed by other incidents of government in the Philippines, Mr. Merriman believes America can be proud of the record of the American junior officers in the constabulary, largely recruited from universities, who have maintained order throughout the islands, he reports. But, he goes on to deplore: "When the Americans left for Europe, the constabulary degenerated. Only a few Americans returned when the armistice was signed, not enough to set as a leaven for the untrained Filipinos." He recalls that in 1926 Governor General Wood induced six men in the United States Army to begin as third lieutenants in the constabulary in Mindanao. There never have been more than 10. Each of the young Americans was given power of life and death over thousands of Moros. A few skirmishes established their rule. AMERICANS ON GUARD These lieutenants passed day and night conferring with Moro chiefs, with settling domestic rows, with engaging in a thousand and one chores that renewed Moro confidence, even straightening out the land titles that had been snarled by the Filipinos. Though many Filipinos are still employed as teachers, they are under the watch of the American constabulary. Filipinos trumped up charges against these Americans. One singled out in particular was Lieut. Richard Cramer, in charge of Tampa, with a population of 15,000. There he maintained 20 cottas. He went among them unarmed. The Moros would not acquiesce in his proposal for peace in the community; he would warn them, then attack. He captured six forts. The Moros yielded to him. His district is peaceful now. Neglected rice fields have become productive. "I passed two weeks with Lieutenant Cramer in his desolate post," says Mr. Merriman. "His residence is a tumble-down shack. Here he administers justice." After service with the American Expeditionary Force Cramer engaged in mining, but eventually reenlisted in the Army for Philippine service. He is INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 635 adored by his men and deeply regarded by the Moros. He is a two-fisted type of fighter. He recovered eight children stolen from their homes and sold as slaves. Seven were restored to their pitifully grateful parents. The parents of the eighth, a boy, could not be found. Cramer adopted him. Again, he rescued an 11-year-old slave girl, whose mother, too, had been made / captive and sent to unknown regions. Cramer adopted the girl too. The slave owners accused Cramer of theft. A Moro widow was induced by Filipinos, says Mr. Merriman, to charge him with assault, her signature being a thumbprint. Informed of the nature of the accusation, she indignantly proclaimed she believed she was signing something about a pension. For these deeds and risks Cramer carries on willingly on a salary of $75 a month. With General Wood gone, promised promotions have failed to reach the lieutenant. No more Americans are being appointed. "And those remaining are encouraged to resign by higher officials in Manila," Mr. Merriman observes. "Not only is their work dangerous, but the lonely life preys on them. One went temporarily insane because he lacked companionship. Peace around Lake Lanao, center of all trouble in Mindanao, rests entirely on the young lieutenants. Once they leave, the whole structure of government must fall, and rebellion will result." Mr. Merriman describes John J. Heffington, American Governor of Lanao, as honest but easy-going. In that capital, Dansalan, Mr. Merriman reports, "the Filipino compels the Moro to gestures of inferiority, such as walking several paces behind a Filipino companion. To see an official the Moro must make his way past Filipino soldiers with fixed bayonets," he says, and day after day he watches the Filipinos at bayonet or rifle drill in the capital. "Though by grace of the American constabulary, which is dwindling, there are no more shootings of families, the Moros are still compelled to submit to indignities at the hands of their oppressors," says Mr. Merriman, who demands the Moro should be freed of Filipino control and be permitted to choose the government he shall follow. APPENDIX 0 THE SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES (Series of articles on the Philippines, written by George S. Johns, editor of the editorial page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and printed in that paper during October and November, 1929. One of the articles in this series is to be found reproduced in the record of these hearings at pages 200-204. The editor's explanatory note states that the articles are based upon information obtained during a visit to the Philippines of about a month. He adds: "The information was obtained by personal observation during a stay of two weeks in Manila, the capital of the insular government, drives around Manila, and a trip with the Governor General on his yacht Apo through the southern half of the Philippines as far south as Jolo in the Sulu archipelago. It embraced the two main islands, and the principal towns of the Moro country. In addition to personal observation, the writer talked with Filipino leaders, Filipino government officials, business men, the Governor General and his advisory staff and assistants. The series contains impartial views, regardless of politics, of political, governmental, economic, educational, and other actual conditions in the islands.") [By George S. Johns, editor, editorial page, the Post-Dispatch] No Governor General sent to the Philippines has made a better first impression than Dwight Filley Davis. From the start he won favorable opinion and good will. This is the universal verdict of the press, the American old-timers, who are critical of all Governors General, and the Filipino political leaders who are intensely interested in the personality, attitude, and methods of a new chief executive. He is the man the Filipino legislative leaders have to deal with in joint control of the government, so they study him carefully. The newspapers dwelt upon the new Governor General's "winning smile," suavity of manner and democratic bearing. They praised his comprehension of the problems of the Philippines and his excellent judgment in handling them in his inaugural speech and his address to the legislature. He wisely refrained from submitting a detailed program of his own, which would have offered opportunity for political bargaining, but vigorously outlined in general terms the reforms and governmental action necessary for good government, progress, and the general welfare of the country. 636 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Few Americans realize how important and difficult the office of Governor General of the Philippines is. He is chief executive of about 13,000,000 people, scattered through an archipelago comprising about 120,000 square miles of land, almost equal to the combined areas of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia. Within his sphere his power exceeds that of the President. Under the organic law embodied in the Jones Act he has control of all executive offices and administrative departments. He appoints all officers outside of the legislature. He is commander-in-chief of the military forces. His veto of legislative bills is practically absolute. It can be reversed only by the President, who has never yet intervened and would not unless he intended to recall the Governor General. He must advise the legislature and recommend policies and measures. TWO MEN IN FULL CONTROL OF THE DOMINANT PARTY There is one check on the Governor General's power. His appointments must be confirmed by the senate. There's the rub-the provision in the organic law, which has been the prolific source of trouble and conflict. The Filipino political leaders-the politicos-use it as a club to force the Governor General to conform to their plans for the distribution of official spoils to the advantage of the dominant Nationalista Party. The legislature is ruled and the politics of the Philippines are dominated by this one party. There is no 2-party system as, yet. There is another partythe Democrata-but it is negligible. It has three out of 34 senators and 13 out of 80 representatives. Its only issue is decentralization and local self-government. It has no representatives in administrative offices. It does not fight. The dominant Nationalista Party is ruled by an oligarchy composed of two men, Manuel Quezon, president of the senate, and Senator Sergio Osmena. There is a third man now, an able understudy and lieutenant, Manuel Roxas, speaker of the house, who is rising into power and prominence. These men are the supreme bosses of the party and the legislature and as much more of the government as the Governor General permits. Quezon, with a brilliant personality, clever and eloquent, is the front. Osmena, less brilliant, but as able, keeps the political forces in line, and Roxas runs the house of representatives. DISASTROUS EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENT BY FILIPINOS To understand the present situation it is necessary to review briefly past occurrences. Governor General Harrison, under President Wilson, feeble and ineffective, yielded practically all the power of his office to the Filipino oligarchy. He created a council of state, composed of the president of the senate, the speaker of the house and himself-two to one against him. The oligarchy took over the executive power, with disastrous consequences. They passed laws usurping executive functions. The government went into business and lost money through inefficient and dishonest management. The national bank was looted by directors and political friends, at a loss of millions of pesos. The government was loaded with a multitude of officeholders and became practically bankrupt. When Gen. Leonard Wood, after a survey of conditions by himself and Cameron Forbes, became governor general, he reversed Harrison's policy. He abolished the council of state and reclaimed all the legal powers of his office. On that account the political oligarchy fought him bitterly. The legislature refused so far as possible to cooperate with him. The senate rejected his appointments. By Quezon's advice the cabinet resigned in a body, expecting to bulldoze General Wood, but he was made of sterner stuff. He accepted the resignations. He made interim appointments, and when the senate refused to confirm let subordinates run the departments under his own supervision. When appropriations were refused he, as the organic law permitted, used the amount appropriated for the previous year. Despite his difficulties, General Wood accomplished great constructive work. He rehabilitated the bank, put the government on its feet, revived the educational, sanitary and improvement systems established by expert Americans which were neglected and nearly starved to death under Filipino autonomy. COUNCIL OF STATE CONTINUED ON BASIS FIXED BY STIMSON Governor General Stimson, with an elaborate program of economic development and public improvements to put through in a short time, reestablished the council of state, stripping it of power and carefully defining it as advisory, only INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 637 designed to give opportunity for friendly contact, consultation and cooperation between the Governor General and the legislative leaders. Governor Davis announced that he would continue the council of state on the same basis. He pledged hearty cooperation for progress and the public welfare. Of course, cooperation is essential. It is a great word with the Filipino politicos. They preach it, but many cynical persons who have observed the trend of events for years say it does not mean, in their minds, cooperation solely for progress and the public welfare, but you give us the official patronage and we'll give you the legislation you want. Politics is the curse of the islands. "We are the most politically minded people in the world," said Secretary of the Interior Ventura to me. It is true that politics absorb the attention of the educated mestizos, the mixed bloods, who are leaders in everything. Young men with a smattering of higher education go into politics looking for political jobs. There are few industries to absorb them and they scorn trades and farming, which are needed more than anything else. POLITICAL GRAFT RECOGNIZED CUSTOM IN THE ISLANDS The Governor General stressed official honesty as the foundation of good government and pledged his best efforts to cleanse the government of graft and corruption. He has a large task. The famous phrase of Judge Priest, a St. Louis lawyer, "Bribery is a conventional crime," may well be applied to graft in the Philippines. We have graft in the United States, but public opinion condemns it. Not so with the Filipinos. Graft is a recognized custom, inherited from the Spanish r6gime. The latest scandal exposed through the joint efforts of Ben Wright, the auditor general, and Secretary Perez of the Department of Commerce and Communications, who has shown unusual courage and persistence in probing and exposing the rascals is in the Bureau of Postes. Economic development is another thing emphasized by Davis. Although progress has been made in this direction it has been exceedingly slow. Vast stretches of fertile lands are going to waste. Other vast stretches of virgin forest are untouched. Mineral resources haven't been scratched. Instead of exploiting the Philippines, American capitalists refuse for various reasons to invest at all. Little foreign capital from any source is available. The Filipinos are too poor and lack either the initiative or the energy to develop national resources or industries. The governor is pressing for the removal of obstacles to economic development, which is essential to all advance. The government needs more money for its ordinary functions and to provide for education and public improvements. He suggests the liberalizing of restrictive land and corporation laws and is looking into the land bureau, which is intolerably inefficient. It takes from 5 to 10 years to get certificates of title for land, which are then doubtful, with large opportunities in the long delays for cheating those who develop lands out of their holdings. POLITICAL BOSS CALLS ON PEOPLE TO TAKE LIBERTY This is the situation confronting Governor General Davis and that the Filipino fight for more power will go on was indicated by Senator Osmena's speech on his return from America. In substance he said the way to get liberty was to take it. Repudiating any desire for a dominion government, he cited the case of Canada. With little change in the organic law Canada, he said, has grasped more power and autonomy, until she was practically independent of England. That, he said, was what the Filipinos should do. The President's major appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, but with a difference. He deals usually with a majority of his own party and always with Americans, having one country and government and common ideals and purposes. There is no desire on their part to rob him of his power and prerogatives, whereas the Governor General deals with a Senate composed of aliens who have their own views and purposes and are pressing for freedom from his power. The test of strength between the Filipino bosses and the Governor General will come later. Meanwhile, Governor Davis is doing his best to establish friendly relations with the Filipino leaders. This is the first essential to any sort of cooperation. The Filipino has some excellent qualities. He is a social creature. He is kindly disposed, courteous, hospitable, and extremely responsive to friendly advances. When his friendship and confidence has been won he is loyal-inclined to be too loyal-prone to sacrifice serious interests to relations and friends. 92109-30-PT 6- 8 *638 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DAVIS WINS GOOD WILL BY CUTTING RED TAPE When I reached Manila Governor Davis, who had been there a month, was getting his bearings. That is the first task of a new Governor General. He had the advantage of having been in touch with Philippine conditions as Assistant:Secretary and Secretary of the War Department. But touch by report and personal contact are different things. He was getting acquainted with the leaders with whom he had to deal. He dined Quezon and Quezon dined him. He gave dinners to the judges of the supreme court and to his official family. He gave a public reception which was attended by the cream of Manila society. American and Filipino. The best of the Filipinos are mestizos, mixed bloods, mos.~tly Spanish. They are the Filipinos of wealth and culture. A Filipino lady of quality is an attraction at a social gathering. She wears a rich-colored skirt and apron, a tight-fitting white bodice, and over it a waist of embroidered pina with a bird-cage sleeves and ruff, rolling back from the shoulders. A group of these picturesque and quaint costumes makes a picture. Mr. Davis mingles freely with his guests, engaging in friendly and confidential chats with all who wish to talk with him. He has cut out all pomp and useless ceremony. He has abolished red tape. Anyone with reason to see him has free access to his office. This is thoroughly appreciated by the Filipinos. GOVERNOR GENERAL S DAUGHTER ACTS AS HOSTESS AT PRESENT In the absence of Mrs. Davis, Miss Alice acts as hostess with poise and grace. She is assisted by her cousin, Miss Alita, daughter of Samuel C. of St. Louis. These charming girls, unaffected, natural, cordial, are potent allies of the Governor General in establishing friendly social relations. They are the hits of Manila. One can enjoy in Manila. The foundations of a beautiful city are being laid. The Luneta, a park largely on ground reclaimed from the bay, extends a half mile on the bay front and a mile or so in depth. It is traversed by broad avenues and runs into the great open park space, with the legislative hall on one side and where, on the others, the public buildings will be erected. It skirts the moat, outside the walls of the old Spanish city, which has been filled in and is used or public golf links and playgrounds. On the bay, on one side of the Luneta, is the Manila Hotel, and on the other the Army and Navy Club and the Elks' Club, all handsome, spacious buildings. To the south, skirting the bay shore for a couple of miles, is Dewey Avenue, the new, splendid, parked, double boulevard, now nearly completed. On the land side it is lined by the best residence section in a setting of profuse tropical trees and flowers. Some of the streets have been widened, but still there are many ancient narrow streets lined with ancient houses. But the appearance of the city now, from the bay, is attractive. LARGEST DANCING HALL IN WORLD IN MANILA Manila is inclined to gayety. The spacious dining and dancing halls of the Manila Hotel and the Army and Navy Club, opening with verandas in the bay, have music and dancing every night, and Saturday is gala night at the Manila Hotel. There are other diversions; there is Santa Ana, the largest cabaret and dancing hall in the world. It is a vast hall, with high vaulted ceiling, divided into two parts by a low openwork partition. In the larger part the Filipino girls gather in large numbers to pick up a few pesos by dancing with guests, and in the smaller society folk frequently drop in after their other entertainments-Manilans keep late hours-to view the scene and indulge in a dancing to the music of an excellent orchestra. Although the place is usually crowded with diners and liquors are freely served, there is never disorder. Drunkenness and unseemly conduct are rigidly suppressed. Filipinos do not drink much-the climate is a bar to heavy drinking-and are peaceable and law abiding. There are other resorts. There is Tom's Dixie Caf6. Tom, the owner, is a negro, but his color is no bar to respectable whites and Filipinos, with whom Tom is friendly, but never presumes. Where brown is the prevailing complexion, why bother about a darker tint? There is a country club, a polo club, and, of course, theaters and movies, the latter, as in America, usually packed. BASEBALL, TENNIS, AND GOLF ARE THE POPULAR SPORTS Sports are becoming more and more popular among the Filipinos. They are taking to baseball, tennis, and golf. Governor Davis is encouraging sports with INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 639:all his might. He still plays a swift game of tennis. Against the crack players.of Manila he holds his own. For most of the year the climate is tolerable. The heat is extreme from March to July, when the rainy season sets in for about three months and the monsoon blows steadily from the China Sea on the west. When it rains, which is nearly,every day, it pours. Sometimes in a squall or typhoon it falls in bucketfuls. The highest recorded continuous rainfall is 45 inches. In the recent typhoon a river north of Manila rose 60 feet in a day and swept away trees, houses, and people. The flood broke the water mains that carry Manila's water supply. No one minds rain. One wears only the lightest washable material, and your wet Clothes will dry on you without discomfort or danger of chill, or you can change 'to another set. Washing is cheap and a white suit a day is the rule among the ~well to do. The others are not bothered about clothing. The rainy season is the season of typhoons; the twisters, sometimes 200 miles in diameter, originate near Guam and travel slowly, as a rule, toward the Philippines, the north coast of,China or Japan. Wherever they strike with full force they cause disaster and death. They bring torrents of rain. In the typhoon season everyone talks typhoon and watches the typhoon signals, indicating location and direction of;travel. Ships stay in port when one approaches. GOVERNOR'S SPACIOUS MANSION HAS ONLY FOUR BEDROOMS In the hot season the official residence of the Governor General is at Baguio,.a mountain resort in the Igorote country, about 175 miles north of Manila. It is a beautiful, picturesque place, delightfully cool all the year round. In Manila the Governor General lives at Malacanan, pronounced ~Mal-a-canyan, with a strong accent on the last syllable. It is the old official residence of Spanish and American governors general. It is a handsome, spacious mansion, surrounded by large grounds on the Pasig River. One enters a modest hallway, Cimbs a wide stairway to a reception room opening into a very large living room. It has a high paneled ceiling; in fact, the walls are paneled with the best Philippine woods, and there are none better or more beautiful. On two sides are the library and dining room and on another a veranda running partly around the house and extending to the river's edge. The governor laughed at a remark about the mansion's spaciousness. He said: "Yes; spacious for visitors, but limited for the family. There are only four bedrooms." He has plans for remodeling and repairing the old mansion and for enriching the grounds with the fauna and flora of the Philippines. Back of the mansion and immediately adjoining it is a fairly new large building for the executive offices. The grounds contain a swimming pool and a tennis court. In several conversations with Governor Davis he talked rather freely of conditions in the Philippines as he saw them, and his work, but was reluctant to be interviewed foe publication. He said he was too new in his office and had not had time to inspect the islands thoroughly or to analyze the problems to be solved. On the question of independence he was dumb. That, he said, was not his concern; it was for Congress to deal with. Speaking of how he liked living in the Philippines, the Governor General said: "Although I have been here but a short time I have been greatly pleased both with the people and with the islands. The people are kindly, courteous, and hospitable, the country is beautiful, and the climate in Manila, except for three months of the year, when many people go to the mountains, is very pleasant. So far I have enjoyed my stay here very much." ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GREAT NEED, DAVIS THINKS " What are some of the needs of the islands, from the governmental standpoint?" "In my message to the legislature I emphasized several matters which I believe to be important for the welfare of the country. In general, I believe that there is a great need for increased economic development, in which term I include both the organization of new industries and the settlement and utilization of the public domain. I believe that this development is vital from the standpoint of the welfare of the people, the progress of the country, and the construction of badly needed public improvements. This economic development idea involves the settlement of many complicated problems which will profoundly affect the future of the country. As, the Filipino people gradually learn to realize the beneficial effect of these needed improvements on the future progress and welfare 640 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS of the country and as they become more economically minded instead of devoting their energies primarily to political matters, I believe that these problems will gradually be solved. Their solution will do more for the future welfare, progress, and prosperity of the country and people than any other one thing, and I am hopeful that it can gradually be accomplished." "Are the Filipino people interested in public improvements, education, and similar activities?" EAGERNESS FOR EDUCATION IMPRESSES GOVERNOR GENERAL "I have never seen a people who have such a sincere and keen thirst for education, and the universal demand for more schools makes it impossible to supply the de mand, unfortunately, on account of the lack of revenues. With the economic development mentioned before, this need would gradually be supplied, although it will be many years before all of the public improvements so badly needed can be constructed. However, since the American occupation tremendous progress has been made in promoting schools, building roads, and developing other improvements and the I ilipino people have a very keen desire to extend these improvements as rapidly as possible." "You have said many complimentary things about the country and the people. What are some of the criticisms you would make?" "I do not believe in making criticisms of a country or a people on such a short acquaintance and without full knowledge of conditions, particularly where the habits, customs, and traditions are different from ours. From the governmental standpoint, however, it is evident that one thing is unwholesome, and that is the fact that a great deal of graft seems to exist in some of the government departments. Many of the higher officials, particularly the secretary of commerce and communications, are making a determined effort to stamp out this graft, however, and we intend to fight it to the finish, as otherwise real, sound progress is impossible. I do not care to discuss other matters which might be the subject of criticism as, if I have any criticisms to offer or suggestions to make, they will be made directly over here." "On the whole, do you think that America can take pride in the part she has played in aiding the development of the Philippines?" "Decidedly, yes." ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN THE PHILIPPINES Although economic development of the Philippines has been slow, there has been substantial progress in every line of advancement, production, trade, education, health. Conditions from every standpoint of civilization were at a low ebb ill the islands when America took them over from Spain. We undertook to bring them to a standard of western civilization high enough to establish a free constitutional republican government-the most difficult of all governments-by an oriental people, mostly Malays, ranging from tribes with but a veneer of civilization to Mohammedan pirates and primitive savages. It was an experiment unparalleled in the history of the world. All the progress of the Philippines must be viewed from this standpoint. It is amazing. The Americans who have served in the islands, soldiers and civilians, served admirably. They laid a solid foundation for progress. The first achievement was the establishing of peace, law, and order. It has been accomplished thoroughly. Life and property are safer in all parts of the archipelago, where the arm of the Government reaches, than in the'United States; far safer than in American cities. All houses are wide open all the time in the Philippines, and there are no armored trucks to carry money. Banditry even in the wilds of the Moro country is rare. Lieutenant Wimberly, commanding a company of constabulary in Mindanao, told me in all the 38,000 square miles of that Moro island, most of it wilderness, he knew of only four bandits, and he expected the Moros themselves to bring them in. They cooperate now with the constabulary in running down wrongdoers. Another invaluable work of Americans, now being carried on almost entirely by Filipinos, was the organizing of an excellent public-school system. The schools have the advantage of enthusiasm among the people for education. Pupils pack the schoolhouses and parents suffer great sacrifices to send their children to school. Only the Moros, who fear the influence of Christian school INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 641 teachers, especially for their girls, are backward in seizing educational opportunities. They refuse to send their girls to schools taught by Filipino men. But their children are fast changing conditions. SCHOOLS NOW ARE MODERN WITH 1,100,000 ENROLLED Former Governor Betts, now a prosperous lumberman at Legaspi, in Albay Province, told me when he went to Albay as governor under Governor General Taft, the people fled from the towns and villages before him and the soldiers. The only way he found to allay their fears and conciliate them was to open schools. Soldiers volunteered to teach, but they had no books or equipment. They painted blackboards, obtained chalk from the hills, and the children lay on their stomachs in the small schoolroom copying their lessons on the backs of banana leaves with quill pens and ink made of berry juice. The children flocked to the schools, and when books and equipment came from America their parents made them carry an armful of books home every day. They wanted others to know that their children were being educated. Soldiers were the first teachers throughout the islands. Speaker Roxas testified before the Senate committee that he learned his excellent English from an American soldier. All this is changed now. The schoolhouses are modern, commodious, well lighted and ventilated buildings. They are scattered throughout the islands. Vice Governor Eugene A. Gilmore, who has served seven years, as acting governor general foi 15 months, is ex-officio head of the department of education and health. Governor Gilmore's services have been invaluable. Under his direction a thorough survey of the school system was made, resulting in many extensions and improvements. School libraries have doubled. Six normal schools have been built, making nine in all. Thus the standard of training for teachers has been greatly advanced. There were in 1928, 5,946 primary schools, 7,222 elementary schools, 57 high schools, 14 agricultural schools, 16 farm schools, 277 settlement farm schools, 26 trade schools, 1 medical school, and 1 school for the deaf, dumb, and blind. The enrollment of pupils reached 1,100,000 outside of the university, which had.5,000 students. The private schools supervised by the government had an enrollment of 100,000. There are yet far from enough schools and enough trained, competent teachers to supply public needs. The people of the rural districts are too poor to supply much money for school purposes, and the insular government lacks funds sufficient to supply school needs. Governor Gilmore says he gets for educational purposes 26 out of every 100 pesos of government revenues. He could get 50 per cent if he asked for it from the legislature, but it would check other necessary activities. One of the special advantages of the school system is that English is taught in all the schools and the people who have 87 dialects are gradually acquiring a eommon language. In several generations a large percentage of the people will read and speak English; intercommunication and exchange of ideas will be possible. An enlightened public opinion may be formed by discussion and the circulation of newspapers and periodicals. One of its disadvantages-its curse, some sayis that there are not enough industries and business to absorb educated young men who refuse to go to trades or farming and when they can not get government jobs they are idle. Much of the education as yet is smattering, not thorough. SPREAD OF LEPROSY AND OTHER DISEASES CHECKED American medical experts have accomplished much for the promotion of health and the cure of diseases prevalent in the Philippines. Through sanitation, hygiene, hospitals, and intensive study of the causes and remedies of diseases which afflicted the Filipinos, they conquered the worst ills. Smallpox has been greatly reduced by general vaccination; cholera epidemics checked and typhoid prevented by sanitary measures, and the purification of water supplies; malaria is controlled and leprosy cured and the spread of it checked. Beriberi, caused wholly by ill-balanced diet without vitamins, is disappearing through changes of foods. The best illustration of the thoroughness of the health work is the comprehensive and successful campaign against leprosy. Leprosy is not infectious in its early stages, and if treated in time can be completely cured. The certainty of its cure through the use of chaulmoogra oil, now made in form not painfully irritating, has worked wonders. Now lepers who formerly were hidden by rela 642 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tives and friends and had to be searched for, come in themselves or are brought in for treatment. There is a leper colony on the island of Cullion where advanced infectious cases are sent. It contains now 5,600 lepers. There in the laboratory Dr. H. W. Wade is devoting his life to research. His wife is in America raising money for the Leonard Wood Leprosy Fund. There are smaller lepersariums and clinics in centers of population. I visited the lepersarium at Cebu, where several hundred lepers-men, women, and children-live in the settlement and are treated at the dispensary. Several hundred live at home and come to the dispensary for treatment. The cases that become negative, practically cured, are sent home with instructions to report at intervals. At Cebu, with money supplied by the Leonard Wood Fund, a large lepersarium with a thoroughly equipped laboratory is being erected. There are 45 buildings, which will accommodate 750 lepers. It is estimated that there are 10,000 lepers in the island of Cebu. Nowhere else in the world has a campaign of the magnitude and success of that of the Philippines been conducted. It is the leader in the antileprosy fight. Of course, this record of work means only that the battle against carelessness, filth, and disease has been well started, not that it is finished-far from it. Sanitation is in its infancy with a vast work to do in the disposal of waste and other menaces to health. The rate of mortality is high, particularly among children. A beginning has been made in the improvement of transportation, railroads, highways, shipping. An archipelago is not suitable for railroads, but there are several running out of cities through thickly populated districts, none flourishing. Some good streets and highways run in and out of principal towns, with bus lines serving the people, but there are vast stretches without passable roads or any roads. Vessels visit only the principal cities. The natives use junks, fishing smacks, and outrigged dugouts, in the handling of which the Moros are very skillful. The carabou, which does all the plowing and hauling in the rural regions and most of the hauling in towns, is a slow locomotive. LAND MOST FERTILE IN WORLD BUT FARMING LANGUISHES Lack of roads, ports, and adequate transportation is one of the reasons for slow economic development. In the line of development agriculture is the first essential. It is necessary to produce food and raw materials and create a home market. With the most fertile land in the world, agriculture languishes, and new land is developed at a rate which will take 400 years to bring the available arable land into cultivation. There are 17,700,000 hectares of arable land in the Philippines. A hectare is about 2% acres. Of this area, only 3,700,000 are in cultivation, leaving 14,000,000 hectares, or about 35,000,000 acres, undeveloped. All of this is rich land, capable of producing every variety of tropical and semitropical products, and it should be borne in mind that with the excellent rainfall and the climate, crops can be raised all the year round, two or three to the year. Yet meager as agricultural development and production are, agricultural products, raw and fabricated, for the market represent 72 per cent of the total value of all commerce. The poverty of the Philippines may be judged by the fact that in 1927 the value of the production of all organized business was $406,587,500. This means an average income of $37.50 per capita and $171 for each family. In the United States the family average is $3,900. The small number and capacity of industries limit the demand for laborers who, too poor to go to the land, migrate in large numbers to the cane fields of Hawaii and the canneries of Alaska. There are many reasons for this backwardness. The climate is not conducive to energetic effort. One can live if he does nothing more than pick the nuts and fruits that grow in profusion around him, and the fermented sap of the coconut tree supplies him with liquor. The Mestizos, most advanced of all the Filipinos, with excellent mental capacity, lack initiative and constructive ability. They do not take to business. The 50,000 Chinese on the islands are rapidly absorbing the business. Every town where there is a chance for profitable business has Chinese business men. No other race can compete with them. Uncertainty with regard to the future is a factor in retarding investment of capital. The Filipino leaders say it is because independence is delayed indefinitely. Others say it is fear of independence,.and what might happen to capital afterwards. All agree uncertainty is an obstacle. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAXDS 643 Capital does not go into agriculture except as an adjunct to industry on a large scale, such as rubber, sugar, hemp, tobacco, and other raw materials for manufacturers. It is restricted in all these directions by the land laws and corporation laws of the Philippines. Restrictions were put on when the American people feared trusts, combines, and big business and the acquisition of large holdings of land. These fears are reflected in the land and corporation laws of the islands. The: Filipino leaders fear the influence of corporations and big business against independence. Under the land laws no individual or corporation can take up more than 2,500 acres of the public domain, and it's doubtful if corporations can legally hold more than this acreage. Of course, they can contract for the products of greater acreage, and there is talk now of permitting a fair leasing system for a number of years. HEALTHY GAIN IN EXPORTS UNDER AMERICAN RULE Lyman P. Hammond, American economist, in an economic survey of theislands made for Governor General Stimson, found great discouragement in the laws and in existing conditions. But he found an encouraging increase of trade.. Exports have increased from an average of 60,886,564 for the first 10 years of American occupation before free trade with the United States was established to an average of 292,174,350 for the three years ending in 1927. Imports within the same period have increased from 59,787,239 to 341,054,550. These figures are in pesos. Of course, no account is taken of comparative differences of cost, price, and money values during pre-war, war, and postwar periods, which would substantially reduce the increase in actual volume. But it is a healthy increase. The imagination of anyone who looks over the Philippines is fired by its economic possibilities. Arthur F. Fischer, director of forestry, whose long experience in that department has given him intimate and comprehensive knowledge of both forestry and agricultural resources, has unbounded faith in the possibilities of development on the islands. He cites the enormous quantities of tropical products now imported into the United States and says that as our population and industry grow and our natural resources are exhausted, we will be more and more dependent upon the tropics for necessaries of life and industry. Take lumber, for instance: He points to 40,000 square miles of.virgia forests, with stands of 10,000 board feet and over per acre, and 19,000 additional forests with less stands. There are 500 varieties of trees, ranging from the finest hardwoods to less valuable but useful woods. "This wealth of forests," he says, "is greatly increased by the so-called minor-forest products, such as copal, resins, oils, rattan, tanbarks, medicinal products, vines, fibers, and others." Rubber, the successful cultivation of which has been demonstrated in Basilan' Island, is a necessity. Britain controls 97 per cent of the world's product and the United States is the principal consumer, taking 75 per cent. The best hemp for cordage and twines may be produced abundantly in the Philippines. There are sugar and tobacco. There is quinine, now controlled by the Dutch, and camphor, used in film and pyralin industries, now controlled by the Japanese and produced in Formosa, a short distance from the Philippines. There are plami oils and coconut oil, used in industry, and gums and oils for varnish and paint, for which we depend upon other nationals. Gutta-percha, necessary for cables, is now controlled by Great Britain. Excellent coffee grows wild on trees 50 feet, high in Mindanao. Paper pulp can be produced from trees and grasses in the. Philippines. The list of possible products is too long for publication. Mr. Fischer thinks the United States has neglected their opportunity and, whether the islands remain indefinitely under American sovereignty or aregranted independence, we should take advantage of our favorable position to develop their resources. The United States have expended a billion dollars or more in the Philippines with little material returns. We could reap a rich return to the great material benefit of the Filipinos and make ourselves independent of other tropical countries; for products if we utilized the resources of the millions of acres of virgin soil and virgin forests in the Philippines. AGUINALDO DENOUNCES INSULAR GOVERNMENT Gen' Emilio Aguinaldo is the Cincinnatus of the Philippines. After preolaiming the Philippine Republic, fighting two wars for independence, one with Spain and one with the United States, and his capture by Funston, he returned to the 644 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS plow. He took the oath of allegiance to the United States and went to farming. For nearly 30 years he lived in retirement, saying nothing and taking no part in politics or public life. He supported Governor General Wood in his fight with the Filipino political oligarchy with his organization of 70,000 war veterans which might be a power in politics if skillfully used, but Aguinaldo is not a politician. This, of course, brought upon him the hostility of the political bosses. Recently he felt called upon to protest against existing political conditions and engaged in a public controversy with Manuel Quezon, president of the senate. The controversy became personal and the general put an embarrassing question to Quezon, who, without a known income except his official salary, has become wealthy. Aguinaldo asked him in substance, "Where did you get it?" Quezon was embarrassed, but answered as best he could that he had been enriched by gifts of land and money from friends and organizations on account of leadership in the independence movement and his public service. This would not be a satisfactory answer on the part of an American holding the highest office in the Government, but it passed in the Philippines. There were speculations and conjectures in the newspapers of Manila with regard to the causes and motives which induced Aguinaldo to come out of his retirement. I thought the best way to discover them was to ask him. When I asked for an interview through his son-in-law, J. B. Melencio, an attorney and member of the house of representatives, who, with his wife, lives with the general, he invited me to luncheon at his home. The general's farming adventure is unsuccessful. He is poor and in debt. His only income is a pension of 12,000 pesos from the Filipino government. He lives in a modest house in Kawit, a barrio (village) 15 miles out of Manila. The old house where he lived during the days of the republic and the wars stands with an extension containing a large living room and dining room. In the living room and a small room adjoining are the relics of the general's war experiences, and on the walls the portrait of his friends, American and Filipino officers. The general pointed out the gallery where his cabinet held meetings, the balcony from which he proclaimed the republic and the holes in the walls, unrepaired, where a stray shot from the Olympia passed through the house. There was a notable gathering for lunch. Among the guests were Major General MacArthur, commander of the military forces, whose father, former commander, was a warm friend of Aguinaldo; Gen. Halstead Dorey, who served with General Wood in the Moro country and during his Governor Generalship; General Bolles, Colonel De Laney, a veteran medical officer in the Philippine service, and a group of Filipino war veterans. General Aguinaldo does not speak English. Mr. Melencio acted as interpreter. The general shows few signs of age. He seems vigorous and his characteristic square-cut hair is merely touched with gray. He answered my questions frankly but briefly. Presently he said he could not easily say what he wanted to say offhand through an interpreter. I suggested that he answer the questions in writing. He immediately accepted the suggestion. He said he would take my questions and answer them in his own way. He said he would be glad to give the Post-Dispatch what he called his message to America. The general, of course, is for independence. He fought two wars for it. His theory that with independence the abuses, corruption, and mockery of democracy now existing would be remedied is questionable. Many impartial observers with full knowledge of conditions violently differ with him. But he speaks for himself in the columns adjoining. "Party politics in the Philippines is a one-sided affair, exceptionally so. Yet it is of such changeable moods and so invariably opportunist that the average citizen must always fail in any attempt to discover its true purposes. Theie is lack of consistent continuity in its various actuations and there are no welldefined issues between the parties. Thus it is that we have only a mere semblance of democracy in the islands. We have the forms and the trappings of democracy, to be sure; we have the elections and the vaporings during campaigns; but, in reality, as democracy is practiced in France and in England and in the United States, we have not got it here. "The opposition party in the islands has been reduced to absolute nullity; it has been comatose, if not moribund, for the last five years; and to all intents and purposes its days aie numbered. There has been erected a 1-party hierarchy, all omnipotent, all absorbing, all aggressive and haughtily sensitive to all crtiticisms. Its principal prop is the confirming power of the Philippine senate. This senate weilds the ax in the matter of appointments to government positions. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 645 Woe to the aspirant for any position who happens to be persona non grata or to; have incurred the displeasure of any of the politicians of the party in power. "One-third of the entire appropriations of the Philippine government go for salaries. Imagine the number of officials and employees that that entails. Imagine, too, the consequent hold of the senators on each and every one of them. And imagine next how they could dominate a large section of the moneyed class. Imagine finally how powerful the machinery has always been. CONTROLS EVEN HUMBLEST OFFICIAL "For it is a veritable machinery, functioning with mechanical precision, dictating in everything, even in the administration of justice, and controlling the highest down to the humblest official and almost all the organs of public opinion. Especially when the elections come, and particularly during the campaigns for special elections, the whole force, with all the means at its command, could just swoop down on an electoral district, where the battle ground is situated and curb or annihilate all opposition. "The opposition has not had a chance to show what it can do in the islands. The key to its gaining strength lies in appointing some of its men to responsbile positions in the cabinet and elsewhere in the government. But that is not done. It would be a sacrilege to the canonized omnipotence of the senate, ahd no Governor General, with the exception of General Wood, has yet risked his cnances of succeeding as a colonial administrator by displeasing the senate in this respect. No Governor General perhaps would ever dare do that either in the future. The safest course for any Governor General to follow would be to give all the appointments which the senate and the politicians want, in return for the approval of whatever legislation or program of government he may have set his hear upon to execute. If the leaders of the party in power find out that he has a pet scheme he desires to push through, they lose no time in bargaining with him. Openly, or below the surface, the formula is this: 'Give us the appointments, you get what you want.' "This explains why much legislation, at first abominable to the political chieftains on the ground that it would jeopardize their power or would not be sance tioned by the masses, has found its way into the statute books of the islands. One could still remember in all vividness how, not so very long ago, there were preachments and harangues to the effect that every dollar of American capital invested in the islands was a nail driven into the coffin of Philippine independence. And yet, without the matter being first made an issue in the elections, how many laws have been passed since, all calculated and purported to encourage the investment of that same capital? "And they were passed, they are being passed, precisely at a time when it is well known that the American governors general in the island are against immediate independence and would not even speak a word about it, on the plea that it is a question cognizable only by the Congress of the United States. LEADERS MADE BARGAIN "When Governor Stimson was appointed governor general the principal politicians in the islands thought that he would follow the policies of General Wood; that their men would not be favored with appointments; and that a stern administration would be inaugurated. Accordingly they lost no time in bargaining with the newly appointed governor general. They agreed they would no longer agitate for independence in return for cabinet and other appointments. It was agreed further that more liberal economic laws would be approved, provided the departments were given more autonomous powers, which means more strength to the party in control. The bargain was carried out to the letter. "During the time of General Wood the policy proclaimed was noncooperation, on the ostensible ground that the general was outspokenly against Philippine freedom. The real reason, however, was his refusal to follow all the desires of the political leaders regarding appointments and regarding laws which he could not see his way clear to approve. They did not want him to intervene in details which would in any way mar party authority and influence, even though the Jones law expressly provides that the governor general has the supreme executive control and supervision in the islands. "General Wood was not really against independence when he assumed office. He wanted, first, to correct the defects in the government, which, as investigator, together with Governor Forbes, he found to be of alarming proportions. He wanted to set the finances of the islands right. He wanted to encourage a strong 646 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS opposition party, so that democracy could be something real and assertive. He often told me that as soon as the defects they had discovered were remedied he would have no objection to recommending Philippine independence under certain limitations. That grand old man of strong and noble character wanted to be the liberator of the Philippines just as he had been the liberator of Cuba, and thus write another achievement in the annals of his career. But small matters were capitalized against him to discredit his good intentions, to the detriment of fruitful harmony and to the eternal regret of that sincere administrator. WOOD S DEATH BLOW TO REFORM "I supported Governor Wood, because I knew he would stand by what he said to me as soon as he could carry out his program of reform. I supported him because I know that he was sincerely planning to take steps to liberate the islands as soon as he could consistently and honestly make the necessary recommendations. When at last he saw how systematic had become the obstruction to his program of reform, even after he had explained his good intentions, he was bitterly disappointed. He could not explain why, if independence was really desired by the Filipino leaders, they would so consistently object to have those reforms brought about. In despair he vigorously combatted the campaign for immediate, 'absolute, and complete independence on the ground that conditions did not warrant it, not certainly under the kind of leadership which existed then. "All the issues appealed to the President in that memorable controversy between General Wood and the Filipino leaders were decided in favor of the general. The systematic obstruction and the attitude shown by certain local politicians was construed by the administration at Washington as an evidencef of incapacity to manage our own affairs when left alone. The administration at last made it clear that it expected cooperation on the part of the Filipino participation in the government; otherwise there would be drastic steps taken. "This opened the eyes of the politicians, and in spite of the coalition between the two major political parties against Governor Wood, it was felt that the obstruction should stop then and there. Accordingly a change of front was commenced. More conciliatory became their attitude and promises to cooperate were made. The death of Governor Wood removed the only barrier to an honorable surrender. And the surrender was made, in the form of an understanding with General Wood's successor. "Curiously enough, however, the surrender strengthened the party in power all the more instead of discrediting it and shattering it to pieces. And the opposition party that had already become unpopular and much weakened for having joined the coalition against General Wood, became weaker still, until now, as I said above, it is agonizing and moribund. "The reason is not far to seek. The cooperation that was inaugurated with Governor Stimson and inherited by Governor Davis had for its keynote the pleasing of the leaders by giving them all the appointments, under the very plausible guise of party responsibility, a semiparliamentary form of government in the parlance of the day. Instead of giving the erring political chiefs a lesson, they were the same materials that were used to inaugurate the new era of harmonv at any cost. The result was instantaneous-still more followers for them. In the eves of the masses they came out victors after all in the conflict with General Wood, because those that supported the latter were ignored. "What is not realized is that to give all the appointments to the party in power is just the same as eternalizing that party at the helm of affairs. Appointments mean positions, and positions mean more followers. As long as the party in power could have all the appointments it wants it could control all the activities in and outside the government, and no opposition party has the ghost of a chance to rise. Thus it is that under the very aegis of American democracy we have come to have a 1-party government in the islands, with all the abuses that it connotes. With the supremacy of one single party that has been created thereunder, there is no need for issues in our elections, and in fact there are no such issues; there can not be. ONE-PARTY GOVERNMENT WTITH GRAFT GALORE "The corollary is that, unlike in France, in England, and in the United States, where cabinets and ministries fall on the approval or disapproval by the electorate of certain issues between the parties, we have the exact opposite in the islands. We have had a 1-party government for the last 22 years, or from the very moment when a supposedly popular government was established here. The resultant of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS - 647 it all is graft galore. Corruption has become rampant in the government. Some officials and employees, believing themselves strongly entrenched in party circles, taking advantage of their positions, which they have held for years, have committed grafts of tremendous magnitude. The customs is saturated with anomalies. So is the administration of the posts. So are many other bureaus of the government. Almost everywhere corruption has set in. Evidentlyv the culprits have been emboldened by the fact that their party is supreme. Many of the anomalies have dated for years, anomalies that could be explained only by either negligent laxity or criminal tolerance. Had there been true democracy; had there been periodic changes in party administration; had the opposition been given a little intervention, at least in the way the government is run-instead of being ignored completely-these corruptions would not have reached such alarming proportions. "This is the principal thing that the Filipino veterans and I have been combating during the last few years. We have been combating the leadership that bas brought it about. Our criticisms have been those of impartial observers, and our aim has been to help and encourage the oppositiol-party. Our position is that unless a real 2-party system is actually encouraged in the islands, with even chances of success at every election, there can not be a real check on the affairs of government. Too long a tenure in office breeds a certain sense of immunity, a belief that even if wrongdoings are discovered, to save party prestige and leadership, the incumbents in office would find some sort of protection. URGES ENCOURAGEMENT OF OPPOSITION PARTY "It is only now that the numerous anomalies and grafts are being unearthed and exposed. Thanks to the efforts of Insular Auditor Wright, who, with uncowed determination and in the face of obstructions of all sorts, had the courage to delve into the mysteries of things and turn upon them the light of investigation and publicity. In doing so, however, and in his various other attempts to curtail anything that savors of corruption, he incurred displeasure from all sides. Circumstances were made so uncomfortable for him that he had no other recourse but to resign. He had to be sacrificed at the altar of the present cooperation. In his resignation, however, the Filipino people have lost a valiant and fearless defender of the public money. "There are only two effective remedies, as I see it, to this state of things. One is for the Governor General to openly adopt a policy of actually encouraging the opposition party by placing some of its men in key positions in the government, in spite of any opposition of the party in control of the senate. This remedy is productive of friction between the executive and the legislature, but if adhered to for some time the country would be used to it. "The other remedy is more radical than the first; it necessitates an amendment by Congress of the Jones law;, and could be assailed.as, a, backward step. It is far more effective, however, and could be easily -luistifed. It lies in -an absolute separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of the government. Under it the senate would have nothing to do whatever with the appointments made by the Governor General to executive and judicial positions in the government. The power to confirm appointments would be withdrawn. This power is undesirable and is fruitful of discord where we have no elective legislative body and an appointive Governor General. Under the present system of government, it merely serves as an effective instrument to perpetuate the dominant party in power and to stifle all opposition, thus making a mockery of democracy and democratic practices. "If the secretaries of departments and the heads of bureaus, the judges and other officials were responsible only to the Governor General and owe no gratitude to the senate for their appointments, they would not be guided at all by political considerations in the parformance of their duties. Their only aim would be the faithful execution of the laws of the land; and when they select men for positions their one norm would be the impartiality and the fitness of applicants. There will be a much more effective control over subordinates, and there will be no hesitancy at all in investigating and going after grafters simply because these are protected by influential politicians who, at any time, can make it very uncomfortable for any official who may have refused to follow their mandates. POWER VESTED IN SENATE IS NO LONGER NEEDED "The power to confirm appointments by the Governor General was vested in the Philippine Senate in order to check whatever abuses in appointments may 648 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS be committed by an unscrupulous Governor General. This reason no longer exists in view of the policy of the United States to send out men here with nationwide reputation for fairness, tact, integrity, and broadmindedness. "The stock arguments against the withdrawal of the power of confirmation by the senate is that the Governor General may appoint Americans instead of Filipinos. This is a very weak argument; it does not take into account that the American Government is committed to the policy of Filipinizing the Philippine government wherever possible. There are many capable Filipinos not now in office, who could be a credit to the various positions in the government and to the ability of the Filipino people if they could only be given a chance to serve. Men who do not care to go into the trouble of joining the political party in order to secure positions. Men who would gladly serve if politicians would have no intervention at all in the performance of their respecive duties. "I believe that either one of the remedies suggested above deserves the serious consideration of the administration, if conditions in the islands are to be improved and if party politics are to be a credit to the principles of popular government. "The defects I have pointed out, however, are no arguments against our ability to maintain an independent government. Not in the least. As a people we have our innate abilities, and when necessary we can rise equal to the needs of the hour. Thirty years ago, we fought two sovereignties, a struggle that lasted three years. We were able to do so without means almost, driven on solely by the compelling ideal to be free. We were able also to establish a Republic of our own, with a constitution suited to our needs and to the taxpaying capacities of our people. If that Republic had been recognized, I have no doubt that we would have succeeded as an independent nationality, despite gloomy predictions to the contrary. "I believe in the independence of the islands. To be free is the only way to gain self-confidence, and to be strong and manly, as history proves. Indeed, paradoxical though it may seem, I would even venture to state that the quickest way to curtail the abuses, the grafts, and the corruptions that now exists in the islands would be to set us free. Then every one would realize the tremendous responsibilities upon our shoulders; there would be ushered a more serious and more conscentious leadership than now; there will be political parties evenly balanced in strength; grafters would be afraid to ply their trade; and abuses, petty and otherwise, would be reduced to a minimum. The desire to succeed as an independent nation would be dominant in the people's minds; there will be a most potent incentive to produce and create wealth, to economize, and to do all things that make for a people's greatness. "The government we now have in the islands is too luxurious. There are too! many offices and bureaus; there is an excess personnel. There is too much waste, too. It is top-heavy. There is hardly any margin at the end of the year for the needs of the future. With independence, the whole top-heavy structure will crumble to pieces. Salaries will have to be reduced; offices will have to be decreased, fused, or merged. The other necessities of an independent existence will have to be attended to. These reforms are impossible at present under a 1-party omnipotence, an omnipotence that is buttressed on extensive patronage. "The Filipinos as a whole desire independence. Most of us who have fought for it are in fact impatient at the long delay. This is why independence remains to be a paramount concern among the inhabitants of the islands. The political leadership that we have now has ridden to power on the issue of immediate, absolute, and complete independence. It has been working for it for the last quarter of a century, but with very undesirable results. There are no signs that the islands will have their freedom in the near future, and according to all indications, the present leadership is not very anxious to have it. This is another major reason why the veterans and I have combatted this leadership, and have been advocating for a change. Despite the pretended labors of a quarter of a century, we are not any nearer to the goal. As a matter of fact, there have been antecedents which militate against the conclusion that immediate freedom is really desired by this leadership. During the administration of President Wilson, for example, on the occasion of the discussion on the Jones bill (1916), the United States Senate approved what was known as the Clarke amendment, which would give to the Philippines their freedom in 1921, five years after thepromulgation of the Jones law. As is well known, the Democratic Party in the United States was then committed to the granting of Philippine independence at an early date, and the amendment was approved in the Senate in order to show the good faith and intentions of the United States. If the present Filipino INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 649 'leadership had then desired to have the amendment pass the House of Representatives it could have done so. Instead, however, the leaders adopted a lukewarm attitude toward the amendment for reasons unknown but which could be readily divined. "That incident shattered my faith and that of my fellow veterans in the sincerity of the present leadership toward the question of Philippine freedom, and I have not hesitated in stating it publicly. The opposition party in the islands has also made efforts to denounce this fact, calling it 'treachery to the cause,' but to no avail. No actual proofs could be adduced, and those in possession of whatever proofs there were, would not reveal them. "The foregoing is a hurried sketch of the situation in the Philippines as I see it, and I have set forth my stand on its various phases. I am glad that through this interview with Mr. Johns I am given the opportunity to make it known to the people of the United States in whose lofty and unselfish purposes toward the Filipinos I am a firm believer. The veterans' association in the Philippines, of which I am the head, has no less than 70,000 members. They are all loyal to the United States; they appreciate her work achieved in the islands; and they have implicit faith in the altruistic intentions of the North American Nation toward our people. We all await with anxiety the fulfillment of America's promise to free us, under proper conditions she may deem fit to require for the protection of her interests in this part of the globe. " AGUINALDO." KAWIT, KABITL, P. I., September 8, 1929. MOROS, VEXATIOUS PROBLEM IN PHILIPPINES, OPPOSED TO NATIVE CHRISTIAN RULE The Moros, who inhabit the southernmost islands of the Philippines, the Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao, the second largest island, and a part of Palawan, constitute one of the problems of the insular government. They are backward, many years behind the Filipinos. All of them are zealous Mohammedans and for a thousand years have lived according to their own peculiar traditions and customs. The Sultan of Sulu exercised supreme authority, religious and civil, and under him the datus or chiefs ruled their clans, having power to decide all questions, including life and death. The Moros were accustomed to personal rule by chiefs. Now all this has changed. The sultan has been deprived of all civil power and is only the religious head. The datus no longer rule their followers, but, of course, their influence is potent. The Moros are slow in accepting these changes of government and in adapting themselves to them. They hate the Christian Filipinos and there is violent opposition among them to appointments of Filipinos to official positions in their provinces. They want Americans to govern them. They hold no hatred of Americans on account of Christianity, because they say Americans give them a square deal. X The Spaniards never conquered them, so that they were scarcely touched by Spanish civilization. All the civilization they had was Mohammedan. FRICTION OVER LAND LAWS The land laws and their inefficient and corrupt administration are continued sources of friction and trouble. The backwardness of the Moros in developing their lands and their ability to understand and deal with the land laws threaten to deprive them of lands. The fact that these Moro problems are likely to crop up in governmental policies and legislation induced Governor General Davis to make a tour of inspection and investigation of Moro conditions before the close of the legislative session. I was fortunate enough to be included in his party, which sailed August 24 on the governor's yacht Apo. The Apo has a history. It was built for former King Manuel of Portugal, who presented it to Gaby des Lys just before the debacle in which he lost his throne. Then H. Clay Pierce bought it, and finally it came into possession of the Philippine Government for the use of the Governor General. It is a light craft, not very seaworthy, and inclined to pitch and roll on the slightest provocation. It kept Captain Pangandban constantly on the lookout for typhoons while in the typhoon belt and for heavy squalls. It accommodates 12 passengers comfortably, with the crew and service boysr that is, if the passengers sleep on deck. 650 INDEPENDENCE FOPR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS GENERAL DOREY TO RETIRE Business was the principal object of the trip, pleasure being incidental, so the governor general took with him two members of his cabinet. They were Jose Abad Santos, secretary of justice, and Honorio Ventura, secretary of the interior. Both are educated, well-informed, able men, Santos quiet and reserved, and Ventura alert, lively, entertaining, and an accomplished politician. In addition were Misses Alice and Alita Davis, Brig. Gen. Halstead Dorey, who has served 30 years in the Philippines, chiefly in the Moro country, and Mrs. Dorey, Col. M. A. de Laney, medical adviser; Capt. E. B. Whisner, the Governor General's aide, and his secretary, F. G. Heins. Fred Wilkins, of the Manila Bulletin went as representative of all the Manila newspapers. General Dorey was both glad and sad. He is leaving the Philippines for an assignment at San Antonio and was glad again to see the Moros, among whom he has strong ties of friendship and affection. And sad that this was probably his last meeting and the last time he would see the headquarters and home of General Wood, whom he greatly admired and loved. Mr. Dorey shared his feelings. The respect, confidence, and affection existing between American Army officers and Moro leaders is a fine tribute to the character and quality of both. The American officers whipped and ruled the Moros, putting down piracy and banditry, yet the Moros are their loyal friends. One can not help admiring the courage, manly qualities, and loyalty of the Moros, to which all American officers in contact with them testify. MOROS' REAL GRIEVANCE The Moros have a real grievance against the United States. They say that they surrendered their guns under promise of the military commander that they would always be under the Government and protection of the United States. Now, they say, the American Government, ignoring the military promise, threatens to turn them over to the Filipinos. In addition to the ancient hatred, they fear a repetition of the massacre, outrage and spoliation committed by the Filipino officials and constabulary when they had full power under Governor General Harrison. The situation is discreditable to the United States. Although in the rainy season, the weather the first day out was delightfulclear, with a refreshing breeze. The Apo, sailing through the South China Sea, skirted the picturesque shore of Luxon, with an occasional island on the west. When the yacht entered the Verde Island Channel between Luxon and Mindora Islands the party was enchanted by the scenic beauty of the waters, sprinkled with islands and islets. The channel and the whole voyage through the Sibyuan Sea, Romblon Pass, and Guimaras Strait, between Panay and Negros Islands, reminded one of the incomparable Inland Sea of Japan. The charming views of verdure-clad hills and valleys and islands, rocks or green hill tops rising out of the water, aroused the enthusiasm of the governor general for the tourist movement which he suggested in one of his Manila speeches. A tourist bureau was organized but before the tourists visit in large numbers any part of the islands outside of Manila it will be necessary to build hotels and improve shipping facilities. There is a paucity of both. Our first stop was at Guindanahan Island for a swim on the coral beach and fishing around Origon Rock. It was rough bathing on the sharp corals, and rough fishing. The rolling waves tossed the boat launches about like corks and the fish refused to touch the shining spinners, but Captain Whisner, just as his launch was returning to the yacht, caught a barracuda, the tiger of the South Seas. His long jaws and sharp teeth suggest the beast of pray and he occasionally attacks and lacerates swimmers. NEW ILLOILO LEPERSARIUM Iloilo, on the island of Panay, was our first objective. It is a sugar center, with 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants. There was a vociferous welcome for the new governor general. The constabulary was drawn up in line on the dock, and nearly the whole population packed the dock and the adjoining streets. Bombs were exploded, and Governor Arroya and a reception committee, mostly Filipinos, with a few Americans, came aboard. The morning was given up to inspection-sanitation, water supply, hospitals, a new lepersarium and the constabulary. Everywhere Governor Davis held hearings, where citizens and officials were free to speak their minds and offer complaints or suggestions. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; 651 The reception given the Governor General at the provincial building was, in American lingo, a whizz. The great hall was richly decorated and all of IHoilo society turned out in gala dress. The band played dance music and the Filipinoi women sat around the walls, in brilliant skirts and embroidered pina waists,. waiting for invitations to dance. Governor Davis doesn't dance, but the Davis girls made up for his deficiency. They were beseiged by Filipino men, and carried on with enthusiasm. There was a plentiful spread of refreshments. A TYPICAL BEST HOME In the evening the party was invited to dinner at the home of the father of Provincial Governor Arroya. He is one of the wealthy men of the town, and his house is typical of the best homes in the Philippines. All of the homes of the Filipino and Moro people of limited means are flimsy bird cages built on stilts about 10 or 12 feet high. The best of them have thin board walls, but nearly all of them have walls made of nipa or bundles of grass, the roofs heavily thatched with grass. There is only one room in these houses, and there is either no front wall or it is inclosed for only part of the space, so that the people practically live out of doors. There is little or no furniture. Sometimes two or three families live in one house. The bathing and other household functions hre mostly done on the ground. The people are frequently accused of being immodest, but it is merely the custom of the country and they are utterly unconscious of immodesty. All of the inhabitants live on the second floor, but the well-to-do inclose their first floor. The first floor of Mr. Arroya's house has concrete walls, and a great gate on one side into which visitors go in automobiles or other vehicles. The room under the entire house resembled a garage, which would accommodate 10 or 15 automobiles at once. A broad stairway led to the living rooms above, where there was a large reception hall, a smaller reception room divided from it by an arch, and around it was a wide balcony on two sides, connected with the reception hall by arches. The windows, as in all good houses, were huge polished wooden frames extending almost from the ceiling to within 3 feet of the floor. The windows have 4-inch panels, filled with shell, which are opaque, but through which the light comes. The window frames fold back and are kept open except in case of storms or heavy rains. There is no winter, so the houses are merely shelters from rain and storm. All of the interior of Mr. Arroya's house was paneled with polished hardwoods. On one side of this house were several bedrooms and the private chapel. As we went deeper into the country the houses became flimsier. RUBBER PLANTATIONS Leaving Iloilo, the Apo headed south for the Moro country, with only one stop before reaching the Moro island of Mindanao. That was at Isabella on the island of Basilan, where there are two rubber plantations. The experiment in rubber growing interested the Governor General. The voyage around the island of Mindanao to Isabella gave the party a touch of rainy season weather. There were squalls and the kind of rain that accompanies squalls in the Philippines. The rain penetrated all of the openings and crevices of the deck roof and awnings on the ship. Sleeping on deck, the members of the party were well sprayed, but that was a mere incident. Getting wet is a matter of no concern in a tropical climate. Two flourishing rubber plantations on Basilan demonstrated thoroughly that rubber can be produced profitably in the Philippines. One plantation, about 25 years old, is owned by Swiss capitalists. The other, about 10 years old, by American capitalists. The American company is headed by Dr. J. W. Strong, who planted the first rubber tree on Basilan. The tree is still flourishing, and yielding a plentiful supply of rubber. There are mills on the plantation where the rubber juice is coagulated and pressed into sheets for shipment. The Basilan plantation, capitalized at about 600,000 pesos, produces 250,000 pounds of rubber annually, and the larger American Rubber Co. plantation produces about 500,000 pounds. Altogether there is invested about 2,000,000 pesos-$1,000,000. WORSHIP SUN AND MOON The island of Basilan, about 300 miles square in area, is inhabited by about 35,000 Yakans, a primitive pagan tribe. They, worship the sun, moon, and stars, birds, animals, and trees-anything that strikes their fancifal superstition as being worthy of worship. Yet they are industrious, and in their spare time have 652 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS developed land on their own account, putting in rubber and coconut trees, and thus cooperating with the rubber companies. Altogether they have utilized about 15,000 hectares in rubber trees and about 45,000 hectares in coconut groves. The island is covered with the finest timber in the Philippines, and exports about 1,500,000 board feet of lumber every month. While we were viewing the tapping of rubber trees the Yakans brought in a young python, about 10 or 12 feet long. He was caged in a box with a wire front, and when approached by a member of the party, struck viciously at the wire. The natives say the python stuns its victims by striking them with its nose, which has a tip of heavy bone. At Isabella the Governor General was met by a welcoming delegation from Zamboanga, the principal city and port of Mindanao. Among them were Provincial Governor Alvarez, Colonel Fletcher of Pettit Barracks, and A. J. Hackett, who has a printing shop and runs an English newspaper. as he says, for fun. He laughed when I asked him about his circulation. He said it was limited. But he is a very intelligent American, and has a reputation of writing the best editorials in the Philippine Islands. He is in deep sympathy with the Moros, and declares they have been woefully neglected by the Government in the matter of schools and local improvements. He said that in one part of the Moro country there were' 7,000 children without schools. Governor Davis had brought with him on the Apo his criss-cross speedboat. In Basilan Strait he launched the speedboat, taking on his Zamboanga visitors, and tried it out. It was a marvel to the visitors and the natives, rushing through the water at tremendous speed with its nose in the air. The governor himself handled the boat with skill. RAMON PENAL COLONY At Zamboanga, although in the Moro country, Filipinos predominated in the reception at the Army and Navy Club dinner and the ball at the Zamboanga Club. There was quite a group of American Army officers and American merchants. The port has considerable trade through coastwise shipping, and the Zamboangans are very anxious to get money for port and road improvement. That was the burden of the conference with the Governor-General. One notable institution in the suburbs of Zamboanga was the San Ramon penal colony. It is an extraordinary colony. About 1,700 hectares are cultivated by the convicts. Everything necessary for the support of the colony is raised on the plantation and there is a surplus for sale. The road to the colony is a beautiful drive skirting the sea, with coconut groves and tropical fruit trees along the highway. In the colony there were broad, winding avenues leading through the plantation, wonderful coconut groves and flourishing rice and grain fields. The party was astonished to find groups of children gathered on the avenues, waving their hands and shouting as the automobiles passed. The trusties are permitted, on good behavior, to bring their families to the colony and live in separate houses. The convicts are permitted to make handicraft products, chief among which are elaborate canes inlaid with bone, ivory and metal, which are sold for their benefit. If it had not been for the review of convicts, one might have imagined he was in a great private plantation. The colony reflected credit on the Philippine government. CONVICTS CULTIVATE LAND There is another colony even more advanced than this on the Island of Palawan, most of which is jungle inhabited by Moros and primitive pagans. The convicts there are permitted to cultivate tracts of land, and a good percentage of the profits is placed to their credit, so that when they leave the colony at the expiration of their terms, the more industrious and thrifty not only know how to farm, but have a modest capital to begin life over again. One convict exceptionally industrious and thrifty, went out of the colony with 6,000 pesos, a modest fortune in the Philippines. An excellent luncheon was served at the colony's official headquarters. At the dinner and dance in the evening the Zamboangans outdid themselves in the decoration at the clubs. Topical plants and flowers, notably the scarlet hibiscus and lotus blossoms, made the walks and entrance bowers of beauty. MORO LEADERS GREET DAVIS When we reached Jolo, the heart of the Moro country, the capital and chief town of the Sulu Archipelago, the harbor was filled with boats to greet the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 653 Governor General. There were two or three gaily decorated launches filled with Moro leaders, and around the yacht clustered a fleet of outrigged. dugouts, mostly filled with women, girls, and boys,,who were expectantly looking for coins. When the group on the yacht began flipping coins in the' water the occupants of the dugouts plunged in after them. The women anid girls, after the Moro fashion, wore highly colored garments like Mother Hubbards, reaching to their ankles, but the garments didn't debar them from diving. They plunged in, Mother Hubbards and all, and came up with coins in their fingers. The Apo. moved'up to the dock, which was packed with a motley crowd. The, Moros were clad in their gala dress, made mostly of highly colored material, woven by themselves out of cotton, silk, and various fibers. They have a taste for color and quaint crude designs. The men wore turbans and fezzes. Many wore skintight trousers, buttoned a little bit above the ankle. Everyone.wondered how they ever get into them. Others wore wide, roomy trousers of brilliant hues, which the women sometimes wear gathered at the ankle. Some oie had given a half dozen Moros placards all alike, evidently written in the same band, declaring "We Do Not Want Governor Fugate." Some one remarked that a clever politician had paid the ignorant Moros to carry placards which were directly opposed to their own sentiments. WOODEN GUNS CARRIED On the dock were the constabulary and American officers and a company of youths carrying wooden guns to escort the party into the town. ' Provincial Governor Fugate was there with a reception committee, and so was the Sultan of Sulu, with quite a group of datus, or native chiefs. Some of them having permits to carry arms and serve as officers of the law, to keep order, were heavily armed. They carried guns; stuck in their belts were krisses, which are waving 2-edged swords, barongs, a rather long broad sword curved on its lower edge; bolos, crescent-shaped short swords; and belt knives. The swords and knives had jeweled and curiously wrought handles and carved sheaths. The Sultan of Sulu is not an impressive figure. He is short and squat, with a rather flat face, and wore large spectacles. His appearance was less impressive because instead of wearing his native costume he had put on a European suit in honor of the governor's visit, and wore a fez. Nearly every Moro-who did not carry a knife and sword carried a cane, many of them highly decorated with inlaid bone or ivory. The Sultan wore shoes, but practically all the chiefs were barefooted. The town of Jolo has between 5,000 and 6,000 inhabitants, and nearly the whole population except the women gathered at the Army and Navy Club, an ancient wooden structure consisting of two rooms, a bar and assembly room, and a very wide porch. There, after a long speech of welcome, the governor made a short address. When the Moros do not wear turbans on their heads, they carry the turban cloths over their shoulders. They are very skillful in twisting them on. They do it in a jiffy, but if one is familiar with their customs he can tell to what tribe they belong by the way the turban is worn. HALF OF PARTY VISITS SULTAN After the reception at the clubhouse the party was taken some distance to the outskirts of the city, on a fairly good road, to the Willard Straight School. It was the holiday season, so few of the pupils were there. There was an interesting museum containing products of Moro handicrafts, ancient and modern. They have quite a genius for fashioning articles for their own use and in designing and weaving cloths. The designs are rather crude but attractive. Then the party was conducted to an assembly room, alongside the athletic field, where the Moros gave an exhibition of sword and spear contests, and bull fighting. The contestants were very agile in handling their weapons and themselves. Between the acts a Moro comedian kept the youngsters in a roar by contortions of his face and body, and acrobatic stunts. For the bull fights the Moros led out carabao bulls, held by long wire ropes attached to rings in their noses. The carabaos are water buffaloes used as beasts of burden all over the Philippines. In their wild state they are the only animals to be feared in the islands. They are very fierce, and charge human beings on the slightest provocation. In the bull fighting one carabao is matched against another. They butted each other all over the field, and the carabao which butted hardest and drove his opponent from the field of course was the victor. 92109-30-PT 6 9 654 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS EULOGIES OF MORO CHIEFS After the exhibition the governor general held a hearing in the assembly room and was addressed long and eloquently by two Moro chiefs whose main discourses were made up of eulogies of Governor Fugate. They declared that he was a wonderful governor, understood the Moros, and cooperated with them. They wanted him retained. Each one of them, however, wound up his speech with a plea for pardon of a follower who was serving a term in the San Ramon penal colony. They spoke in the Moro language and were fairly well interpreted by a Moro who spoke English. On the way back to town the party was invited to visit the home of the sultan. He is building a new house, but it rained in such torrents that half of the group could not find the way to the house. The governor general, however, reached the house and paid the sultan a visit. The business of Jolo is practically absorbed by the Chinese, who live in a section where the houses are built on stilts over the water of the harbor. There is a long, rickety plank walk running in front of the houses, most of which have stores fronting on this walk. There are holes in the boardwalk big enough for a child to drop through, but there are so many children in the section that the loss of a few of them is not seriously felt. Babies are the chief product of the Orient. It was gratifying to note the delight with which grizzled old Moro chiefs met General Dorev. His service in the Moro country has brought him into contact with a great many of them, and they gave evidence of the warmest sentiment of freindship and affection for him. CROCODILES INFEST RIVER From Jolo the yacht voyaged through a wonderful group of small islands, touching the Celebes Sea and running through the Moro Gulf to Cotobato, on the Mindanao River. There the party was met by Colonel Fletcher and Colonel Evans, who had come up from Zamboanga on a launch which was nearly wrecked by a heavy storm. Both are excellent rough and ready field officers. Colonel Fletcher, the elder in age and service, is a noted character in the Moro country. The Moros call him "Papa Fletcher," and he is friend, confidante, and counselor to the Moro leaders. They go to him for advice and to settle their controversies. Colonel Fletcher, no matter how much time and trouble he must give to it, patiently hears their stories and decides the contention to their satisfaction. They accept his decision without question. The colonel has a high opinion of the qualities of the Moros. He said when they are wrong they accept the verdict against them, and punishment if required, without resentment. "But," he added, "God help you if you do not give them a full hearing, and decide against them when they are right. They never forgive or forget that." Cotobato, where we stopped next, is a modest town about 10 miles up the Mindanao River, a large yellow stream, infested with crocodiles which lie along the marshy banks. Woe betide the person who stirs them up. They are vicious brutes and attack with either jaws or tail. In the hospital at Cotobato we saw two women who the day before, while washing clothes in the river, had been attacked by crocodiles. They were terribly lacerated, and how they were rescued is a wonder. The simple mind of the natives was shown by the women. The mother of one of the injured girls went to Colonel Delaney, and asked him to cure her daughter immediately. She thought that as he was the medical adviser of the governor general, he was capable of immediate healing of any injured person. She seemed to think all he had to do was to wave his hand and the girl would recover. At the mouth of the river the party was met by Datu Biang the oldest and one of the most influential datus of that neighborhood. He had come down in his little boat, 30 miles to invite the governor general to hunt ducks near his place. We took him and his son on board. He was a quaint Moro, 86 years old, dressed in his native costume, and barefooted, of course. He had never worn a shce in his life. Governor Davis accepted his invitation, and next morning went up to Datu Biang's place with two or three of the party equipped with guns, and brought back about 40 ducks. The ducks were shot from Moro vintas, their peculiar boats, paddled by turbaned guides. The provincial governor of Cotobato is a Filipino, Guitterez, But the Moros predominate in all the country around. Along the banks of the river approaching the town we saw Moro life in its native prinitiveness. The people gathered on the banks in front of their picturesque little grass huts on stilts. Boys up to 8 INDEPENDENCE FORE THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 655 years old were naked. That is a privilege of the boys all the year round in the Philippines, and, in summer time, in both rural China and Japan. HIKE THROUGH JUNGLE Cotobato had a new town hall all of which the natives were very proud and on top of the highet hihll, overlooking the river valley and the town, is an old Spanish fort, now occupied hy the constabulary. The oldest Spanish building was turned into a calaboose. The Davis girls went to Datu Biang's place up the river in the speedboat and brought the governor general back. The astonishment and delight of the natives at the swiftness of the boat were beyond bounds. Before we left the mouth of the Mindanao River two Moros came alongside the yacht in their outrigged canoe, driven by the storm. They were out of food and water. We gave them food and offered them water, but they said, "We have plenty of water. It's all around us." It was salt water, but they drink salt water on their long voyages. It keeps them from dying of thirst, but is unwholesome as a regular water diet. MOSQUITOES CAUSE FEVER Colonel Fletcher had provided horses and guides at Baras, a short distance up the coast, for a hike through the jungle to Lake Lanao. General Dorey, much to his disappointment, was debarred from the trip by an attack of dengue fever caused by mosquito bites. The mosquitoes are not only pesky but carry malaria germs. The party separated at Baras, the governor general and the girls and half of the group taking the jungle hike, and the others sailing around the western end of Mindanao Island to Iligan Bay. Colonel Delaney outfitted the hiking party with an antidote for snake venom. The only dangers of the jungle are the cobras; whose venom is deadly; pythons, which attain a length of 35 feet, and wild caribao. The jungle abounds in monkeys, and one was brought back to Manila as a pet by the young ladies. The hiking party went to Ganassi, at the southern end of Lake Lanao, spending eight hours in the saddle. There was a vociferous welcome at Ganassi, all the Moros clad in brilliant costumes, with hundreds of flags. The music, furnished by Moro drums and instruments resembling our xylophone, was weird. The party boarded the General Blanco, an old Spanish gunboat, which had been scuttled and sunk by the Spaniards but was brought up from the bottom of the lake for further service. The boat took them across the lake to Camp Keithley, where the provincial governor, J. J. Heffington, took charge of the party. Camp Keithley was the headquarters of the American Army and is well equipped with barracks, houses, and other necessaries of a large camp. After a thorough inspection of the hospital, constabulary, and the local leper detention stations, the governor general held a hearing, in the courtroom, where the datus and subsultans presented their problems. The Moro leaders were extremely outspoken at Camp Keithley. They freely expressed their resentment at Filipino control and Filipino officeholders, asking that the Moros be given government positions. Some of them urged flood control, more schools, better roads, and development similar to that of the Filipinos in Luzon and the Visayos which they declared were far in advance of the Moro provinces. TOO MANY BOSSES Datu Dional spoke from the shoulder. He said the Moros had too many bosses, too much red tape, especially in the courts, too much complication in the registry of lands. He demanded that all except Moros be ousted from Mindanao and the lands be kept for the natives alone. Of course, the governor general promised to do all he could for the Moros. An interesting feature of the Camp Keithley proceedings was a visit to the home of Datu Ibra, the richest in the Province. His house was a brilliant example of datu furnishing and ornaments. Quaint canopied beds were covered with gorgeous spreads. There were curiously designed hammered metal implements, and one gorgeously furnished room, for the women of the family, who came out and greeted the visitors. Of course, the women as well as the men among the Moros have black teeth, caused by chewing the betel nut. Every well-to-do Moro, man or woman, carries a quaintly engraved ornamented betel box of silver or composition, containing all the betel ingredients-the lime, the leaf in which the betel nut is wrapped, in smaller boxes. They chew the betel nut continually. It blackens and ultimately destroys their teeth. The metalwork of the Moros 656 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS in brass is very attractive and interesting. Datu Ibra had an abundance of Moro swords and knives, the sheaths carved elaborately, the handles adorned with gold, silver, and gems of various colors. The party from the Apo joined the jungle hiking party at Camp Keithley and proceeded by automobile to Iligan Bay, passing on the way a Moro market, were the Moros from all the country round had brought their handmade cloths, vegetables, and fruits for sale or exchange. It was a picturesque scene. Farther down the road we went a little way into the jungle to see Maria Christina Falls, an impressive waterfall, about 300 feet high, capable, the engineers say, of developing enough electric current to supply all the island with power and light. CEBU DENSELY POPULATED The next leg of the journey back to Filipino country brought the yacht to Cebu, the capital of the Island of Cebu. The island is the most densely populated of all the Philippine Islands, and the city is the liveliest and most prosperous. Products from other islands are shipped to Cebu and transshipped from there either to Manila or foreign ports. It was Senator Osmena's home place, and he has been the leader in developing and beautifying the city with broad streets. Theie we found moie of the American boosting spirit than anywhere else. The harbor was full of shipping and the Cebuans are spending more than 4,000,000 pesos enlarging their docks. There is quite a number of Americans representing American corporations and shipping interests there. In the public square is a great black cross, erected on the spot where Magellan held the first mass when he landed at Cebu. Magellan was killed on the little island of Mactan, just off the coast of Cebu. Cebu is full of old Spanish relics in the way of churches and houses. There is the great leprosarium being erected by the Leonard Wood Fund for lepers, which I described in a previous article. The whole island, which is very narrow, is traversed by good roads, and one passes better-looking towns and barrios (small villages) than anywhere outside of Luzon. The country except on the seashore is hilly, almost mountainous, and it was interesting to see huge fields of corn running to the hilltops. The corn is very small, the seed has never been renewed, but the natives manage to get quite a large amount of ears out of these mountain fields. On the way home through the Camotes and Visayan seas it was evident that the governor general had been greatly impressed with the conditions in the Moro country and the needs of the people there. It was a hasty inspection, but he found the Moros extremely backward and greatly in need of economic and cultural development. He was particularly impressed with the need of better courts and a thorough reform of the land-registration system. While Governor Davis thought that the Moro hatred of the Filipinos, resentment at their holding office in the Moro country and interfering with their government might be ironed out in time, he was anxious that they get "a square deal," which they are not getting now. He thought American resentment against their exploitation might easily be aroused. Turning over in his mind what might be done to reserve the lands of the Moros for the Moros themselves, he considered the advisability of having reservations such as we have for the Indians, thus holding the lands until the Moros are ready to develop them fully. As for official corruption, the governor general said he wanted to put that question to the Filipino leaders in a new light. He wanted them to see that graft and corruption was not the robbery of an abstraction called the government, but deprived the people of schools, roads, and other necessary improvements. He found, however, a real Moro problem, requiring understanding, tact, and statesmanship in dealing with it. He was not prepared to give the details of plans for helping the Moros, but undoubtedly the plans will come out of his highly interesting and instructive journey. The Moros raise and gather fruit and rice for their own consumption and their principal commodities are fish, pearls, and shells. x Independence for the Philippine Islands HEARINGS BEFORE TIIE #COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFA1RS UNITED STATES SENATE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS SECOND i SESSION ON S. 204 A BILL PROVIDING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS S. 3108 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION, ETC. S. J. Res. 113 JOINT RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT TO CALL A CONFERENCE ON THE PHILIPPINE QUESTION S. Res. 199 RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF TARIFF AUTONOMY FOR THE PHILIPPINES S. 3379 A BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION, ETC. S. 3822 A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE, ETC. Part 7 MAY 22, 1930 Printed for the use of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92109 WASHINGTON: 1930 T)-S.J. -it) it theu COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HIRAM BINGHAM, Connecticut, Chairman HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada. ARTHUR R. ROBINSON, Indiana. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Georgia. GERALD P. NYEL, North Dakota. EDWIN S. BROUSSARD, Louisiana. JESSE H. METCALF, Rhode Island. CARL HAYDEN, Arizona. ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland. GUY D. GOFF, West Virginia. HARRY B. HAWES, Missouri. BRONSON M. CUTTING, New Mexico. HENRY M. BARRY, Clerk II INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1930 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, in the committee room of the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, the Capitol, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Senator Hiram Bingham (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Bingham (chairman), Nye, Metcalf, Vandenberg, Cutting, Broussard, and Hawes. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STIMSON, SECRETARY OF STATE The CHAIRMAN. That we may not waste any time, and may get through by 12 o'clock, I will state that the Secretary of State, at my invitation, and in his former capacity of Governor General of the Philippine Islands, who has the confidence of the Philippine people as well as the American people, has consented to appear before the committee in open session to make a statement this morning. In order to save his time and our time, he has requested that he be permitted to complete his statement before any questions are asked, and then he will devote whatever time is left to questions and answers. Senator VANDENBERG. Before he begins, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am compelled to attend a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but I will return later, if possible. I apologize to the Secretary. Secretary STIMSON. I appreciate the importance of the work which is pending before that committee, Senator. I thank the chairman of this committee very much for the privilege of being permitted to complete my statement without interruption. Senator HAWES. I am not sure, Mr. Secretary, that I can agree to that, because we have a limited time and there are certain points e: that are of particular interest to members of the committee. I might want to ask you some questions. Secretary STIMSON. Well, Senator, I will come back again, if it is desired, but I will insist upon completing my statement without inter-, ruption, as a right, if I go on at all. I will not submit to interruption. Senator HAWES. I shall reserve the right to interrupt you, and you may refuse to answer, Mr. Secretary, if you so desire. Secretary STIMSON. I warn you beforehand that, if any questions are asked me, I will refuse to answer. Senator HAWES. Very well. If you want to treat the members of this committee in that way, that is your privilege. Secretary STIMSON. You know, Senator, that is not my method of treating committees in general, but you know also that I am very 657 658 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tired, and I was here a long time yesterday in executive session and answered a good many questions. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, I want the record to show in that connection that we have been waiting to hear from you for a long time, even since you returned from abroad. There are certain matters we want to develop, and I think it is only proper, if we think they can be better developed by asking questions, to ask them. Secretary STIMSON. Of course, Senator Hawes, my only purpose is to be allowed to make an uninterrupted statement. After that I will answer your questions, even if necessary to return here as many times as you may want me to; but it is not fair to interrupt a witness who has as difficult and as complex a subject as I have here, and who is as tired as I am at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the committee assured the Secretary this morning that he would be permitted to make his statement without interruption, and I will request that questions be reserved until the end of his statement. Secretary STIMSON. I will make it as brief as possible. I am going to make it as brief as I can, and by reference to papers, wherever necessary, rather than by quotations from them. In substance, I want to begin by saying that I concur in the statements made by the Secretary of War in his letter of May 15. They coincide with my own observations, or with my own conclusions from those observations, and I think it is a fair and liberal statement of the situation in the Philippine Islands to-day, so far as I know it from my experience up to a year ago. This is the letter dated May 15. The CHAIRMAN. That letter has been before the committee. Secretary STIMSON. In the second place, I am opposed to the immediate independence of the Philippine Islands, on three grounds, which I will take up in their order: First, I am opposed to it, because I believe it would be disastrous to the Philippine people; second, I am opposed to it, because I believe it would be disastrous to the interests of the United States, both on the islands and in the Far East; and third, I am opposed to it, because I believe it would inevitably create a general unsettlement of affairs in the Far East, in connection with the present conditions in the different countries having interests in and exercising sovereignty there. Now, I will take these up in the order in which I have stated them. I am opposed, first, because it would be disastrous to the Philippine people. I believe that to be true, because I believe the Philippine people are to-day quite unprepared for independence, either politically or economically. Taking those in their order, I believe that political independence, in the sense of the separation of the Philippine Islands from all leadership or control by the American Government, would destroy selfgovernment in the Philippines, and the result would be either a condition of anarchy or a condition of oligarchy, in which a comparatively small class of Filipinos would exercise arbitrary power over the ordinary rights of the individuals, the small men in the islands. And by the small group I refer to the money lenders and to the local politicians. One of the greatest efforts made now by the Government, and necessarily now by the Government, is to protect the small Filipino against financial tyranny from the one class and political INDEPENDENCE FOR THEE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 659 tyranny from the other. In that sense and toward that end the effort of the American influence on the islands has been directed for the past 30 years. I also believe that it would impair their self-government, because it would result in the control of the population of the islands by an alien race, the Chinese. At present the Chinese control the retail trade of the large cities; they control the market of the small Filipino producers in the Provinces; and that condition is growing more and more every day. In my travels about the islands I used to ask a series of questions of the local people who were interested in producing and selling their products, and in far too numerous cases I found that the market for their products, the only sources of transportation, and therefore the control of the Filipino producer, was in the hands of middlemen who were of the other race. I am also familiar, as the question came before me as Governor General many times, with the matter of smuggling of unlawful immigrants from China into the islands. That was a constant problem. We had an investigation of it. It is very difficult to control, even under the exclusion laws of the United States, which apply to the islands, and even under the leadership of the American administration of the islands. It is an ever-present situation of danger, and, in my opinion, with it independence would result eventusally in the submergence by a different race of what is now the development of a Malay civilization. So, though it may be a desirable thing from the standpoint of some people, I do not think it is desired by the Filipino people. It was not by those with whom I talked, but it would result almost as inevitably as the rising of the tides on the seashore. In the second place, I believe it would be economically disastrous to the Filipino people. I stated my views on that subject last year before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, giving a detailed history of my experience there, my efforts to develop economic self-government, and the basis upon which that development rested. I explained them to this committee yesterday in executive session. There is no secret about them. They were stated before the Committee on Ways and Means, and this memorandum which I have here was afterwards made public, and I ask to have it made a part of the record in connection with my statement. The CHAIRMAN. That may be made a part of the record. (The document referred to is here printed in full, as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STIMSON, FORMERLY GOVERNOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES Mr. STIMSON. When I went as Governor General to the Philippines in March, 1928, a deadlock had existed for several years between the executive and the legislature of the islands, which had begun with the resignation of the Filipino cabinet in 1923 and had continued ever since. As a solution to this deadlock I suggested in my inaugural address that we attempt a program of economic development to take the place of the former political agitation. The Filipinos accepted this program and a year of constructive effort followed, resulting among others in the following legislative measures promoting such economic development: (1) Revised corporation laws, facilitating the entry of American capital. (2) Revision of the banking laws and the establishment of a superintendent of banking, to which there was appointed an American superintendent, the reform greatly stabilizing the banking of the islands. (3) An act making the Philippine tariff on tobacco automatically conform to the American tariff on tobacco, thus preventing the possibility of any Sumatran 660 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS or other form of wrapper tobacco gaining a cheaper entrance into the American market by way of the Philippines. (NOTE.-This remedied a defect in previous legislation which had been called to our attention by our American tobacco manufacturers.) (4) Revised irrigation laws, improving the irrigation system of the islands. (5) Several important shipping laws in the interest of the protection and facilitation of commerce. (6) Long-distance telephone franchise and two new franchises for radio communication with the United States. (7) Several water-power franchises. (8) A number of other acts of important legislation which I can not now enumerate from memory. In many other ways the Filipino people responded to my appeal. Two weeks before I left Manila the first congress of Filipino business men was held in that city and sat a week discussing many measures of importance to business men. This in itself marked a forward step of almost revolutionary character in the islands. The whole subject of the attitude of the Filipinos toward American capital was debated during the passage of the corporation laws, resulting in a complete victory in favor of the friendly treatment of American capital. All of these steps had a marked effect upon American capital, which had theretofore been timid and reluctant to enter the islands. I remember several typical examples out of many similar evidences. (a) Robert Dollar decided to enter interisland shipping with two new vessels; to transfer his repair shops to the Philippines and to build a large office building. (b) The California Packing Co. definitely decided to embark upon the project of extending its pineapple business from Hawaii to the Philippines. (c) The Goodyear Rubber Co. acquired an experimental tract of land for rubber in Mindanao and began active work in experimentation. (d) Cyrus McCormick, jr., visited the islands in reference to the raising of hemp in Mindanao for the International Harvester Co. (e) Many business men either visited the islands or took up the subject of active development of its resources with me. The previous anti-American agitation for complete and immediate independence practically ceased. Not only was I not subjected to any attack or annoyance, but political agitation on these subjects almost ceased and my relations with the political leaders and the people of the islands became most cordial and sympathetic. The Filipino newspapers which had previously been anti-American publicly announced that " Filipino faith in the purposes of America had been restored." The whole movement during the year had been based upon my appeal that we should forget recent controversies and should turn back to the policies that had been laid down 30 years ago by President McKinley and Secretary of War Root and had been inaugurated in the islands by Governor General Taft. This slogan was taken up by the Filipino newspapers and was referred to frequently as the policy to be pursued. This original movement initiated under the McKinley and Roosevelt administrations 30 years ago, was based upon free trade between the Philippines and the United States. It was thus stated in 1905 by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress: "The only logical result from our possession of the Philippine Islands is free trade between the islands and the rest of the United States. It is definitely settled that we retain them until the people are prepared for self-government. To bring about this will require at least a generation. The question of their final disposition must be postponed for many years. In the meantime they are wards of the United States, a part of our common country and are entitled to fair trade relations. It is now as much our plain duty to give them free trade as soon as practicable as it was in the case of Porto Rico. (Republican majority report, Ways and Means Committee, 1905.) " The minority of the committee in 1905 was also in favor of free trade. A very large measure of free trade was granted in 1909 as soon as the termination of the treaty with Spain permitted it to be done without giving similar privileges to Spain. This step was taken by a Republican House of Representatives. Later in 1913 a Democratic House of Representatives completed the work giving substantially complete free trade. Thus, the question of the islands being entitled to free trade so long as we held them has never been a party issue, both parties having concurred in it. I subsequently witnessed the withering effect which the suggeston of raising a tariff barrier produced both upon political and business confidence in the islands just as soon as the press reports brought word of the introduction of the Timber INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 661 lake resolution and the resolutions of various trade associations urging a tariff against coconut oil, pearl buttons, and other industries. The effect of these movements both politically and industrially in the islands was very marked and at once slowed up the work in which we were all engaged. New investments which were under discussion were withdrawn. Political leaders and the press reported at once a recrudescence of distrust in America and a reagitation of the question of independence. No one who was present in Manila at the time could fail to observe the effect. It was a dominant note in every newspaper and was on the lips of every business man and every public officer., This experience indicated the futility of attempting to compromise this question by legislation which will set the restriction higher than the present Philippine production. The damage to the relations between the islands and the United States will nevertheless be done by the mere threat of restriction. Once it is known that the basis underlying their entire economic system is in danger and can be broken successfully by the efforts of protected industries in the United States the harm is done, and the people of the islands have lost their confidence in the people of America. Capital will fear similar successful attacks upon any zone in which it embarks. In this connection it must be remembered that the present standard of living throughout the Philippine Islands rests almost entirely upon the American market. The standard of living of the Filipino laborer is at least 300 per cent higher than that of his neighbor in China. It is much higher than that of any similar labor in the other surrounding countries like Java or Singapore. Thirty years ago we offered the Filipino occidental civilization and he accepted it. We have given him western education, western schools, western improved roads and other western physical advantages, and he has come to have a western outlook. This accounts for the sense of betrayal and wrong which is now produced by an attempt to take away the foundation to which we ourselves have led him. He feels that he has trusted and has been betrayed. The damaging effect which would be done to American credit throughout the Orient by such a sense of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos would be incalculable. Trade with China and Japan can no longer be won by the forcible opening and holding of ports of entry. It can only be won by the cultivation of friendly relations with the people of the Orient then-mselves. During the brief time since I first visited the Orient three years ago I have seen the entire trade of Great Britain in large portions of China crippled within a few weeks by a boycott of British trade arising out of a political occurrence attributed to Great Birtain. I have seen the same thing happen to Japan. At present the United States is extremely popular with the Nationalist leaders of China who have voiced to me in conferences their confidence in the fairness of America and in the ideals which have actuated American policy. The effect of a report that America had been guilty of an act of injustice to her own oriental wards in the Philippine Islands would be used by all of our trade rivals in the Orient with great effect and would cause the most serious damage to our future relations with other oriental peoples. The proposed measure restricting sugar is entirely unnecessary to protect our American beet or cane sugar. The free entry of Philippine sugar into the United States to-day does not, and can not, affect the price of sugar in the American market. During the year 1928, 3,227,445 tons of foreign duty-paying sugar entered the United States; in 1929, 3,679,349 tons; and the average of such duty-paying sugar for the past five years has been far above 3,000,000 tons. So long as such duty-paying sugar enters the American market it fixes the price of that market. Inasmuch as practically all of this duty-paying sugar comes from Cuba, its price fixes the American price. That price is the market price of sugar in Cuba plus the amount of the duty paid upon Cuban sugar in the American customs. It is admitted by the domestic sugar interests that the amount of domestic production can not be greatly or suddenly increased. Therefore, even if the free entry of Philippine sugar should be cut off entirely, the only effect would be to increase the amount of foreign sugar which would enter the American market, i. e., to sacrifice Philippine sugar to Cuban sugar. Roughly speaking, three-fifths of the sugar consumed in America to-day comes from foreign sources, nearly all of it Cuban; one-fifth from sugar produced in the continental limits of the United States; and the other one-fifth from its insular possessions, including Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. (Report of Department of Commerce Yearbook 1928.) In 1928 the importation of duty-free sugar from the Philippines into the United States amounted to 574,000 tons. If, as I shall show later, this amount can not be increased, except very slowly, it is manifest that the price of foreign 662 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANIDS duty-paying sugar, and not the price of Philippine sugar, will fix the American market price of sugar for an indefinitely long period to come. This issue, therefore, does not rest between domestic sugar and Philippine sugar; domestic sugar is not, in any way, affected by free importation from the Philippines. The present issue is an issue between Cuban sugar and Philippine sugar and that alone. The present attempt to restrict sugar from the Philippines comes directly from those interests which have invested in Cuban sugar. On this point the opponents of Philippine sugar have been highly disingenuous, producing before this committee figures which did not show the full fac ts. A scrutiny of the full facts shows that there has been very little change in the acreage of Philippine sugar since 1880 and that the marked increase which has taken place since the Ameiican occupation in 1899 has been due solely to two causes (1) the cessation of the condition of war which existed from 1895 to 1903 and (2) the introduction of large modern centrals, which were not completely operating until 1924. There follow the figures of Philippine sugar exports for the past 50 years: Total sugar YerTotal sugar Yearepot exports Ya xot Tons Tens 1880 --- —-------------- 178, 327 11904 --- —------------ 85,677 1882 -----------------— I 205, 507 1905 --- —------------- 106, 784 188 -- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- 148, 046 1906 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -127,408 1883 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- 93,7 5 19 7 -- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- -— 125,89589 1884 ----------------— I 120,198 1904 --- —------------- 142,448 1885 ----------------— I 2006195 1909 --- —--------— 127,284 1886 ------------------- 182; 018 1910 ------------— 119,552 1887 ------------------- 169, 040 1911 --- —------------- 205, 741 1888 ------------------- 158, 444 1912 --- —------------- 193,962 1889 ------------------- 224,85.9 I1913 --- —------------- 154,848 180 --- —---------------- 142,552 I'1914 --- —------------- 232,761 1891 ------------------- 136, 034 1915 --- —------------- 207, 678 1892 ------------------- 248,804 1916 --- —------------- 332, 157 1893 ------------------- 257, 390 1917 --- —------------- 202,654 1894 ------------------- 207, 318 1918 --- —------------- 268,940 1895 --- —-------------- 336, 705 i1919 --- —------------- 133, 910 1896 ------------------- 226, 279 1920 --- —------------- 177, 491 1897 ------------------- 198,899 I1921 --- —------------- 285,295 1898 ------------------- 177, 962 1922 --- —------------- 356, 351 1899 ------------------- 84, 471 1923 --- —------------- 267, 685 1900 ------------------- 64, 160 1924 --- —------------- 352, 176 1901 ------------------- 97, 038 11925 --- —------------- 538, 192 1902 ------------------- 55, 974 1926 --- —------------- 404, 735 3903 ------------------- 34, 750 1927 --- —------------- 544, 579 The foregoing figures up to 1903 were taken from the official census of that year of the islands. From this it will be seen that the Philippines exported in 1895, the year before the Filipino insurrection against Spain began, 336,075 tons of sugar. These figures were never equaled again until 1922. They were entirelv produced by the old-fashioned muscavado mill which recovered only from 50 to 60 per cent of the saccharine matter of the cane. Had the modern central existed in the Philippines in 1895, the production of that year would have amounted to 560,000 tons, almost exactly, the amount produced in the year 1928. This alone would show that the acreage at both dates was substantially the same. There are now 36 centrals in the islands. The first was constructed in 1910; the second in 1914; but the great bulk of them were not constructed until the boom years of the Great War and were not fully completed and in operation until 1924. Through my titular stock ownership as governor general of the Philippine National Bank, I virtuallyv controlled six of these largest mills; and I am, therefore, familiar with their history as well as that of their fellows in the islands. For anyone possessing that kn~owledge to believe that there is an finmediate roseate future in sight for Philippine sugar is simply nonsense. These six government mills still owe the Philippine National Bank $15,000,000,and the Government has set aside $5,500,000 to meet the estimated ultimate loss of the bank from its investment in these properties. I have personally visited and I am familiar with nearly all of the sections -,'-hich have been devoted to the production of sugar in the Philippine Islands during this 50-vyear period above mentioned. They lie principally in the island of Negros and in the great central plain of Luzon. By my irstercourse with their owners and their neighbors I am familiar with the history of that country and that industry; and the unchanging amount and character of the acreage as shown INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 663 by the above figures is confirmed by my own personal observation. The only attempt to raise sugar on a large scale in a new locality which had not been so used under the Spaniards was the attempt of the San Jose sugar central in the island of Mindoro. This concern produces now about 6,000 tons of sugar and has been substantially a failure. I know this also from my own personal knowledge of the books of this company. Incidentally, I am informed that it is to be sold by its creditors on May 1, 1929. This failure was not due to inexperience on the part of its promoters, which included experienced American sugar men. Thus, such increase as has taken place in the production of sugar in the Philippines within the past seven years has been due not to acreage but to improvements in milling. The effect of these mechanical improvements is now complete; no further increase can be expected, except that through additional acreage or the ordinary improvements of methods of agriculture which can be gradually i ntroduced. As I explained to the committee, no rapid increase in acreage can be expected, owing to the land laws of the Philippine Islands. These laws prevent the purchase by corporations of tracts of land exceeding 1,024 hectares (2,500 acres). These limitations grew out of the abuses of land monopolization under the Spanish friars under the Spanish regime. After the American occupation, the United States purchased from the Roman Catholic Church these large tracts and turned them over to the Philippine government for redistribution among the people, and these land laws were enacted by the American Congress to prevent a recurrence of this land monopolization. The abuses of the former regime produced the insurrection of 1896 against the Spanish and have left a marked impress upon the feelings of the people which effectually prevents any proposed amendment to these laws. The Filipinos believe in the gradual development of their resources by a population composed of independent farmers holding small farms in fee. They are opposed to a more rapid development by corporate landlords using hired labor. These views were expressed to me many times during my term of office and even -my own efforts at economic development were resisted until the Filipino people became assured that I did not intend to alter their land laws. Such restrictions can be taken as a permanent incident of Philippine policy. Another thing which necessarily prevents rapid Philippine sugar development is that the raising of sugar in the Philippine is dependent upon local labor. Unlike Hawaii and Cuba where sugar planters import labor from abroad, that is impossible in the Philippine Islands. The American-Chinese exclusion laws forbid the importation of Chinese labor into the Philippines; and those laws are supported by an overwhemling predominant public opinion in the islands. To sum up, sugar development in the Philippines in the future is dependent upon the cooperation of a number of small independent landowners tilling their own small plantations around a central mill. The development of such an agriculture is necessarily slow; compared with a development by large corporations which purchase large tracts of land in fee and have the direct power of management, the Philippine system is comparatively cumbersome. It requires the cooperation of many independent individuals and the development of their methods of production by persuasion rather than by command. Like all democratic methods it is less efficient than a more autocratic system. In my opinion is is an entirely safer forecast to say that hereafter the production of sugar in the Philippines can not increase faster than the present proportionate amount of Philippine sugar consumed within the United States will also increase. The Philippine Sugar Association has estimated that the production of sugar in the Philippines will not exceed 1,000,000 tons within 10 years. (See pamphlet, "Facts and Statistics about Philippine Sugar Industry," pp. 8, 55.) From my own experience I can show that this estimate even as a maximum is most optomistic. To produce the 1,000,000 aggregate the authors of this pamphlet have included the following estimates of possible local increases: Estimated nmaximum Island Present pro- production duction 10 years from now Tons Tons Cebu --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,388 50,000 Mindoro --- —--- -- --------------------------------------------- 6,033 50,000 Mindanao ---- -------------------------------------------- None. 25,000 664 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS These last estimates are fantastic. The only sugar mill in Mindoro is the San Jose mill, above mentioned, which is on the point of failure. The rest of the island produces no sugar and, in fact, is at present a wilderness. The only modern central in Cebu is one just completed, with only a potential production of 10,000 tons. No sugar has ever been exported from Mindanao, and there is no prospect that any ever will be. Thus, taking up the three items of which I have personal knowledge, I can readily knock off over 100,000 tons from their estimate of 1,000,000 by 1938. As to the alleged Spanish ownership of the Philippine sugar industry: It has been commonly asserted that there is a predominant Spanish element in the Philippine sugar industry. The inaccuracy of this statement can be easily shown by the following figures. The nationality of the ownership of the acreage of sugar land in the Philippines is shown by the following table: Area in Area in Per cent hectares Land devoted to sugarcane in the Philippines, showing cultivators: Filipinos --- —--------------------------------- ------------------------------ 174,053 87 Spaniards ---------------------- -------------------------- 14, 785 7 Americans and other nationalities --- —------------------------------------------ 11,963 6 Total --- —------------------------------------------------------------------ 200,801 100 The nationality of the investments made in Philippine sugar lands is as follows: The total investments in the Philippine sugar industry aggregate $190,000,000, distributed as to the character of the investments, as follows: Investment in centrals --- —--------------------------------- $82, 500, 000 Landed investments ------------------------ 90, 000, 000 Crop loans --- —------------------- 12, 500, 000 Miscellaneous investments ----------------- 5, 000, 000 Total- _ _ -------------------- 190, 000, 000 The land ownership is as follows: Filipino --- —------------- 73, 800, 000 Spanish --- —--------------------------- 9, 900, 000 American and others ---------------— 6, 300, 000 Total ----------------------------------- 90, 000,000 The ownership of the centrals is as follows: Filipino --- —----------- 40, 250, 000 American --- —----------------- 21, 500, 000 Spanish --- —--------------- 20, 250, 000 Other nationalities --- —------------- 500, 000 Total ------------- ---------- - ------- 82, 500, 000 Furthermore, the ownerships which, in the foregoing tables, are classified as Spanish are not held by nonresident Spanish. On the contrary they are practically all of them hold-overs from the old Spanish r6gime, and their owners, in almost every case, are members of families which have resided for many generations in the Philippine Islands. Thus the two principal Spanish companies which are responsible for the great bulk of the properties classified as Spanish in the foregoing tables are Tabacalera Co. and Ynchausti & Co. The Tabacalera Co. has been for 48 years in the Philippine Islands and Ynchausti & Co. have been there for 75 years. The men who are the leaders in the last-named company are now the third generation of owners who have been born in the Philippine Islands. They are not only Filipino residents but they are virtually Filipino citizens. In this connection it must be remembered that many of them have probably retained their Spanish citizenship because after the American occupation it was not possible for them to become naturalized Americans under our law. there being no naturalization courts created in the islands. I personally met nearly all of them and I say from my own observation that in residence, habit, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPIfE ISLANDS 665 thought, and interest they are virtually Filipinos-lifelong residents of the Philippine Islands. There has been no rush toward sugar cultivation in the Philippines, now of any other time. The acreage of the five principal crops of the Philippine Islands is as follows: Hectares Rice --- —----------------------— ______ 1, 807, 060 Corn --------------------------— _-_ -— _-__-_-_-_-_______ 561, 430 Coconuts --------------------— _ --- —----— _ ___ ---_ __ __- 500, 110 Hemp- _ -------------— _______ _____________ _ 480, 150 Sugar --------------— __- -_-_____ ______________-___ 237, 350 (A hectare is equivalent to about 2.4 acres.) Thus of the acreage of the islands at present devoted to these five principal crops sugar has only 6.6 per cent. The Philippines are thus very far from being a one-crop country. To sum up, this committee is asked by the proposers of this limitation on Philippine sugar to strike a blow at an industry which is at present not affecting the price of any domestic sugar; and which can not possibly affect such price within any reasonable period of years to come, owing to the democratic method of its cultivation fostered under the laws of an American Congress. Such a limitation would be inevitably interpreted as a betrayal of trust by the United States toward a dependent people and such a betrayal would not only violate American principles of government which had been initiated by a Republican administration and carried out without a difference of opinion by all parties, but it would arouse a widespread criticism in the Orient as well as in other parts of the world with which we desire commercial relations and would inflict a lasting blow upon our credit and good name. Secretary STIMSON. In substance,, my efforts as Governor General were directed toward the experiment of endeavoring to increase the general business and wealth of the islands, in order that we should be able to make the people better and more happily governed by having better sources for our revenues to be raised by taxation. That depended upon further development of the resources and trade of the islands, because the islands on their present resources are quite highly taxed. The results of that investigation satisfied my mind and proved to me, after a long discussion, led in behalf of my proposition by the president of the Filipino Senate, Mr. Manuel Quezon, in a most courageous debate, that the Filipinos both need and desire the capital necessary to make their country more self-sustaining and their revenues greater. That was the significance of that debate, that was the significance of the action of the legislature, and it was one of the most illuminating things that happened while I was there. They can not stand alone, as I have said, in my opinion, until the development of sufficient revenue to take over, not only the external functions that the United States now performs for them of protection, of diplomatic relations, of the mapping and coast surveys of the harbors, but also the revenue necessary for carrying them further along in those steps of internal development, such as education, particularly education, self-reliance, which will be sufficient to prevent the catastrophe from happening that I mentioned before of having a submergence, either by an outside race or by internal anarchy or oligarchy. Now, that proposition is one of the keystones of this problem which this committee has before it, because it is susceptible of mathematical demonstration. If I am right in my belief that the Filipinos need that development, if I am right in my belief that it is necessaryto give them the economic power to stand alone, then you can calculate math 666 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ematically the minimum time within which they can get the capital necessary to make that development. In other words, they have not the capital themselves. Nothing was more abundantly demonstrated through the efforts that I made there last, year. That capital has got to come from abroad. It was admitted to me by their leaders and shown by my own investigations that they have not the capital. As I have stated to you, and as I have stated in this document that I put in the record, I am not a believer in exploitation. I am a firm believer in the land laws of the Philippine Islands, which are intended to develop a race of small agriculturists, independent farmers. I am not a believer in the development of large corporations which would hold the population as tenants. They know I am with them in that respect. They know my efforts toward working out a development by coo)eration of small farmers. But it all requires capital, and the capital must be secured on proper terms. You can not get capital unless you assure capital a sufficiently long period in which it can amortize itself, so that the investor who puts his money into the islands will be sure that he will have time to get it out again. We all know that in business. We all know that is what we have to do. The minimum that should be allowed for that, even under the present conditions existing in the country, is in the neighborhood of 30 years. That marks the minimum time. Now, to show that I am not speaking a foreign language on something on which the Filipinos do not agree with me, I have had put into my hands this morning extracts from the newspapers of Manila, which I will tell you about as they were printed yesterday in the Washington Pest. This committee may not know the significance of these newspapers. The first which I am going to quote from is the Philippines Herald, which has always been an aggressive nationalist newspaper. It is supposed to be run under the influence and the control of Mr. Quezon, who is the leader of the Nationalist Party. It has always been a vigorous supporter of independence. It has been one of the most prominent critics of American administration, when criticism of that administration was going on. It is a most vigorous prGindependent and anti-American exploitation paper that is printed there in the English language, wholly under Filipino influence. That paper has come out with an editorial, part of which was printed in the Post yesterday, from which I quote: Immediate independence would mean economic disaster and would be unfair to the Filipino people. I am reading from an article which quotes these statements from the Herald. The next quotation is: The Filipino is entitled to be given a chance to adjust himself to changed conditions and prepare himself for economic freedom. That is the proposition I am talking about. That is followed by this quotation: Does America think that to attain this condition 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years are necessary? That is the inquiry which it puts out for discussion. Another editorial in the same paper says: Immediate independence is a mere slogan, an ideal. Ultimate or eventual freedom at some fixed date, 10, 15, or 25 years hence, would seem more practical, INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 667 and more in harmony with the conservative element in Congress and with the sense of justice of altruistic Americans who would do the right thing by the Filipinos. Now, with all respect, I say that that paper to me, as a man acquainted with the Filipinos, means more than all the bombast you have been listening to in this committee during the time you have sat. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, that is an unfortunate statement of yours, and it is not a correct one, that this committee has been listening to bombastic statements. Secretary STIMSON. I have not read the record. I will withdraw it. I have been told it has. Senator HAWES. Whoever told you that made a false statement. I want the record to show that. Secretary STIMSON. All right, sir. Senator HAwEs. The editorials which you were reading discussed immediate independence. Secretary STIMSON. That is all I am discussing. Senator HAWES. There is no bill before us, except one which we were not considering, which provides for immediate independence. Secretary STIMSON. I will take up the question of the bills, Senator Hawes, in a moment, and I will show you what I think of the period of time provided for, but I am going to finish this statement first. The next is from the Manila Tribune. Now, the Manila Tribune is one of a group of three papers: The Tribune, which is published in English; the Van Guardia, which is published in Spanish, ad a third paper called the Taliba, which is published in Tagalog. Those three papers are owned by one family, the Roces family, and those papers have always represented a strong independent Filipino sentiment. Independent of party politics, they have always supported, within the time I have known them, the policy of independence. I think it is a fair thing to say that they are altogether the most widely circulated and influential newspapers in Manila. I can not speak from actual figures on circulation, but they have the reputation of being the most responsible and most influential Filipino papers in Manila. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, since we are on this newspaper subject, is it not a fact that each and every newspaper from which you have quoted is editorially in favor of independence of the Filipinos at some time? Secretary STIMSON. I have said that, Senator Hawes, just now. I said the Tribune was in favor of it, and I said the Herald was in favor of it. Senator HAWES. All of them. Every paper in the Philippines is in favor of independence? Secretary STIMSON. I do not know that. I am not going to answer any further questions. The CHAIRMAN. I think the Secretary should be allowed to proceed. Secretary STIMSON. The purpose of the interruption is plain. Senator HAWES. I want to deny that. The Secretary is here to inform this committee, and he has been reading from these newspapers. Now, I asked the Secretary if there is a single newspaper printed in the Philippines that does not favor independence for the Filipinos. He can refuse to answer, if he desires. The CHAIRMAN. I hope the Secretary will be permitted to proceed with his statement. 668 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Secretary STIMSON. I will proceed. The Tribune continues in a recent editorial upon this subject. Again I am quoting: No thinking Filipino would vote for immediate and absolute independence, if he could have an independence in 10 to 30 years as a period of preparation for the economic disturbance sure to follow upon a rupture of political relations with the United States. Its marketsMeaning United States marketsare too valuable for Filipino trade to-day to permit a real Filipino patriot to sanction the disaster inherent in an abrupt termination of the present relations. Now, that is perhaps a better and clearer statement of the proposition which I am arguing than I made when I started out. Then this newspaper goes on-speaking of the Filipino leaders who would not face the situation squarely, the paper declares: They lack the courage of real leadership. They are opportunists, seeking the path of least resistance, apparently more interested in perpetuating their own political hold upon office and its perquisites than in a courageous stand for public welfare, regardless of irreponsible and carping criticism. Then it goes on. What I have read is quoted by the Washington Post from these editorials. Senator HAWES. Now, Mr. Secretary, you have been reading some quotations from newspapers and, of course, it makes an issue very clearly drawn of whether the newspapers in the Philippines favor independence or are opposed to it. I again ask you if there is a single paper published in the Philippine Islands that is opposed to independence. The CHAIRMAN. I hope the Secretary will answer that question when he has completed his statement. Senator HAWES. I would like to have an answer to it now. Secretary STIMSON. I will answer it. So far as I know that is true. There may be some papers published by American interests there that are opposed to independence, but I can not name them. I am not speaking about independence. In my opening I said I would speak about immediate independence. I am discussing the question of immediate independence. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, there is not a man on this committee, so you may save your time, who is advocating immediate independence for the Philippines. Not a single member of this committee, and no one who has appeared before the committee, so far as I know, has advocated it, except some of the Filipino representatives, and that is not an issue before this committee. Secretary STIMSON. I am going to answer that one, and then I am not going to answer any more. Senator HAWES. I do not know whether you will or not. Secretary STIMSON. You are advocating a bill that provides for independence after five years. I am going to try to show that five years is immediate independence, in the sense of the disaster it would cause the Filipinos. Senator HAWES. The bill speaks for itself. It says five years, but the practical effect would be seven years, and the committee may change that limit. There is no bill before this committee, that we have taken up seriously, that calls for immediate independence of the Philippines. Therefore, none of these newspaper clippings that you have read from is pertinent to the subject before this committee. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 669 Secretary STIMSON. I am going to take up a discussion of the argument afterwards, but I am going to go on now, if the chairman will permit me, with my direct statement. The CHAIRMAN. I hope the Secretary will be permitted to proceed with his statement without further interruption. Secretary STIMSON. The second point I was going to make was that immediate independence would be disastrous to the United States' interests, both on the islands and in the Far East. That is a matter which is related to my present department, as well as to my former position as governor general, of which I can speak; but I am only going to outline it because I have already spoken on that subject before a subcommittee of some committee of the Senate, of which Senator Johnson was chairman, and of which Senator Ransdell was a member. The CHAIRMAN. I think that was the Committee on Commerce. Secretary STIMSON. I am going to refer to what I said there. It was a hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate. On this subject which I am now taking up as my second point, I am going to ask you to refer to it. It is already printed, so there is no use of printing it in this statement of mine, but I refer to my statement which is printed on page 89 of the hearings before that subcommittee. The CHAIRMAN. Can you summarize it, so as to give us the substance of it? We will have a complete statement for the record, but I will ask you to briefly summarize it. Secretary STIMSON. In that statement I pointed out that in my opinion the twentieth century was to be an era of development of trade in the Orient by the United States, a development of foreign trade which was presaged by the tremendous development that had.already taken place since the war. Our trans-Pacific trade, if I am not mistaken, had quadrupled in less than 10 years after the close of the Great War, an infinitely greater rate of progress than had been made by our foreign trade across the Atlantic. We sitting over here near the Atlantic seaboard are not always alive to the importance of that future development. Circumstances have made it necessary that I, although I am a dweller on the Atlantic seaboard, should come in contact with that viewpoint. I have been very greatly impressed, for example, by the change, the growth in the interest of America in that trade, which took place between the time when I was here in the War Department, ending in 1913, and the time when I again took up an examination of the question, when I went to the Philippines in 1926. I was immensely impressed by the importance of that development. I was immensely impressed by the importance of the growth of the trade in China, and the trade with Japan, the interest of America in it, the number,of American steamship lines that were in that trade. I mean after that interval when I was here before, from 1911 to 1913. It was then one of my official duties to be engaged in the supervision of the building of the Panama Canal. It was one of my duties to try to interest American merchants in the use to which we were going to put the canal after it was finished. I found it very difficult at that tine to excite interest in the numerous avenues that the (anal was going to open in trade across the Pacific with the eastern seacoast of this country. In 1926, when I went across the Pacific and again 670 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN )S took up the question, I found a marvelous change, which indicated the growth of this country's interest in oriental trade. Now, the point I am making can be summarized in this: There is an influence which a friendly Filipino people, whether they are governmentally connected with us or whether they are independent, but have become independent upon a basis which is fair to themI say, such a friendly people would be of incalculable value to our interests in the Far East. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, will you yield for a question? Secretary STIMSON. I would rather not, sir. Senator HAWES. It is right on this point. The CHAIRMAN. I think the Secretary should be permitted to complete his statement. I ask that he be permitted to proceed. Senator HAWES. I am going to ask the Secretary a question on this point. If it develops that the Filipino people are earnest and united and sincere in their request for independence, do you believe it would be considered a proper thing to deny them that independence, and would it not adversely affect the oriental mind? Secretary STIMSON. I will take that up in the development of what I am saying. Senator HAWES. I would like to have the Secretary answer it now. Secretary STIMSON. I will do it in my own way. Senator HAWES. Of course, you know, Mr. Secretary, you are covering a variety of subjects now, going from newspaper clippings to various things as you pass along. It would illuminate the matter very much if you would answer that question. Secretary STIMSON. I shall have to be the best judge of that. The CHAIRMAN. I ask that the Secretary be permitted to make his statement without interruption. The chairman has agreed with him that should be the method, in view of the Secretary's condition. I must ask the committee to let the Secretary complete his statement. Senator HAWES. Are we to understand that the Secretary refuses to answer the question? Secretary STIMSON. I do at the present, except in my own time, and in my own way. The interruption has already had the effect of throwing me off my chain of argument or discussion. Now, what I was saying was that it is of vital importance to American interests in the Far East that there should be a friendly Filipino people, friendly to us, in relations of friendship and amity, whether governmental or not, at the gateway of the Orient. My predecessor as Governor General of the islands, Gen. Leonard Wood, used to speak of the Philippine Islands as "'the spear point of Christianity in the Orient." By that he referred to the fact that there we have 12,000,000 people, 11,000,000 of whom are Christians, now engaged under our influence in the development of a western civilization and a democratic form of government. That is unique in the Orient. Around them is a group of nations, aggregating over 450,000,000, living their different relig;ons, and brought up in an entirely different civilization. I am just stating these facts as we pass along, on account of the shortness of time. My observations lead me to believe that America's influence in the Orient to-day, exercised through its work-in the Philippines as a government, its official relations there as a government, is INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE. ISLANDS 671 more important in its influence upon these 450,000,000 of people that comprise the Orient than all of the millions of money and tremendous and devoted efforts that have been made individually by missionaries and others throughout the whole East. In one place we have a distinct, consecutive, continuing and effective effort, made under the aegis of the American Government, and it stands there as a representative of what we stand for. It means us in the eyes of the Orient. Senator Hawes: Will the Secretary yield for a question? The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is very desirous of the Secretary being permitted to complete his statement without interruption. Secretary STIMSON. I can not account for these interruptions on any other theory than for the purpose of breaking my continuity of thought. The CHAIRMAN. It has always been our custom to question witnesses at any time, unless they ask to be allowed to proceed without interruption. Secretary STIMSON. I have done that. The CHAIRMAN. When the Filipinos appeared before the committee, they were permitted to make their statements in their own way without interruption, and put some of it in writing. The Secretary has asked to be permitted to proceed without interruption, and the Chair must again ask the Senator to make his notes of questions and propound them to the Secretary at a later time, when he has completed his statement. Senator HAWES. I was going to ask the Secretary if it was not a fact that the Filipinos were Christians at least 200 years before the Americans came over there, and that the Americans had nothing to do with their conversion to Christianity. Secretary STIMSON. I have not said that they did. But the fact is that to-day they are a Christian nation, under our influence, under our Government, and under our Government they have become not only that, but a democratic nation in the western sense of that word; and under our protection in respect to sanitation, which is one of the things that is wholly omitted from the Senator's bill, they have increased in number from between six and seven million, which they were when we came there, to about 12,000,000 now. Now, I was going to say that when you have that situation, when you have a nation of that type at the gateway of the Orient, the effect upon the surrounding Orient of the treatment which we administer to them must be self-evident. If we treat them justly, as we are believed to have done in the past, the effect is good. If we treat them unjustly, the effect would be correspondingly bad. And there is the importance of this question. That is why I have gone out of my regular duties in the State Department, which have nothing to do with the tariff, which have nothing to do with the coastwise shipping laws, which have only an incidental relation to the Philippine Islands, and have taken the time, on the request of the pe'ople with whom I had relations over there, to protect them already twice against injustices during the past year of this Congress; and now, as I believe, a third time, if there is danger of a hasty and improvident law being passed for immediate independence. When I appeared before the Ways and Means Committee of the' House of Representatives to prevent their products being penalized 92109 -30 —n 7- -2 672 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS by propositions which were pending before that committee for a tariff on Philippine goods, I am glad to say, whether from my efforts or otherwise, we were successful. A second time I appeared before the coastwise committee, that I referred to a few minutes ago, to prevent there being accomplished by indirection what had been formerly attempted directly, namely, the proposition that would have imposed restrictions upon the shipping which would raise the cost of bringing their products to market and produce the same effect as a tariff on them. Now, in the same spirit, I am here to-day to try to prevent what I believe to be an even worse evil, to throw them into a condition where their present wonderful advance will be lost, and where their progress in self-government and freedom will be taken away from them. And I may say that I am here at the request, in addition to the request of this committee, in addition to the request of my chief in the administration, of members of the Philippine Commission. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary — The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The Secretary has requested that he be permitted to complete his statement without interruption, and I must appeal to the Senator to permit him to do so. I request the Senator to withhold his questions until the Secretary has completed his statement. Senator HAWES. Do you mean to say the Philippine The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The chairman asks that there be no interruption until the Secretary has completed his statement. Senator HAWES. Do you mean to say the commissioners, or any of them, asked you to appear here in opposition to independence? Secretary STIMSON. I have made my statement, and on that I stand, and I shall not answer it any further. Senator HAWES. Will the Secretary name the commissioners? Secretary STIMSON. I will not. I do not want to embarrass the gentlemen who may have asked me to come here. What I was going to say, before I was interrupted, that being the situation, and the eyes of China and the rest of the Far East being on the Philippine Islands and our treatment of them, with the present efficiency which China has shown in penalizing the trade of those against whom she has a grievance by the use of the boycott, I say that our future in the Far East turns upon our reputation for justice and fair dealing with those to whom we owe a trust. I have seen the trade of Hong Kong gravely injured by a boycott, arising out of a single incident. I say that the only way in which in modern times trade can be built up is by a reputation for fair dealing and justice, and I again plead at this time for fair dealing toward our Filipino wards in an enlightened and farseeing way. The third point, the third reason why I am opposed to hasty and premature independence, is the general unsettlement which it would cause in the Far East, if it happened in that way. In order to give a picture to you of what that means, I will have to refer to what the situation is and has been. I can speak only up to the time that I left the islands, a year ago last February. At that time the Philippine Islands and their government represented the most contented and generally peaceful part of the Orient. A great civil war was raging across the sea in China, and had been for years. Japan was still suffering from economic difficulties the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 673 consequence of the earthquake and the disasters which ensued. There had been revolution in Java under the autocratic control of the government there, which has never received the notice in the American press which its importance deserves. In that environment the Philippine Islands were contented, developing rapidly along the lines of self-government, and in every respect happy. Some apprehension was thrown into them just before I left by the threat over here against their market by the Timberlake resolution, but other than! that it was in striking contrast to the rest of that part of the world. Now, in contrast with that, in the light of what I have already told you of the surrounding conditions, think of what might happen and probably would happen if the progressive experiment which has been going on for 30 years were interrupted without safeguards and by a sudden withdrawal of the American leadership and sovereignty. As I said a moment ago, -those islands are being developed. They are underpopulated. The population, as I remember the figures, was approximately 90 per square mile, and on the neighboring mainland in China it was over 400 per square mile. There is being developed there, under the aegis of the United States, a Christian Malay civilization. The protection to that little group of people is not the slender force of soldiers or the fortifications that the United States keeps on the islands, but the fact that they are connected with the immense power of the United States over here, and the fact that any country knows that to get into a war with the United States means eventual disaster to any country that tries it. If our influence should be withdrawn, there would be a void created proportionate to the size of the influence that is withdrawn. I do not mean to say that any of the surrounding countries, through their governments, have designs upon the Philippines. I want to be very careful that that is not inferred from what I am saying. I do not believe that there is any government around there-I emphasize the word "government "-that has in the back of its head any designing proposition to go in and take the Philippines if we leave. But there would be created a situation which has existed in history many times, where an unbalance was created, where a void was created,,and where trouble in great likelihood would come which might force the hands of some of the other governments to intervene. There have been times when just that has happened to such a country, which has been left without power and without balance, where the most powerful countries in the neighborhood have been compelled to step in, not altogether from their own wishes, but through the force of circumstances. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, at this point I am very anxious to ask one or two questions. Secretary STIMSON. That is becoming quite evident, Senator, but I am not quite through. Senator HAWES. Then, as a matter of time, Mr. Secretary, if we are not going to be permitted to ask you questions, I would like to know what arrangements are made as to when it shall be done. I have one or two I should like very much to ask you. Secretary STIMSON. Senator, you know that I am not trying to *choke you off, except for the purpose of getting through with my statement. If you want me to come back again, I will come back, if I do not get through before you adjourn this morning. 674 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Senator HAWES. Will you come this afternoon? Secretary STIMSON. Yes; I will come this afternoon. Senator HAWES. That is all right. Secretary STIMSON. I am very anxious to get through, probably as anxious as you are, but rather than leave a grievance rankling in your bosom I will come back. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, I want to assure you that I have no grievance in my bosom, but we have been having so much trouble getting this hearing, and I have a few questions I want to ask. This is an open session. I only wanted to be sure that I would have that opportunity to-day. That was all. Secretary STIMSON. I am not going to delay you any more. I know you will agree with me that it has not been my fault that I was detained in London longer than I wanted to stay there. Now, I am coming to the point which I think will come more closely in contact with what Senator Hawes wants to talk about, as the result of what I have been saying. My view is that these are not criticisms of any legislation that should come out of here. I am not going to try to draw the legislation for you. I will try to suggest some features which I think such legislation should cover. Do you understand what I mean? Senator HAWES. I was in hopes, Mr. Secretary, as you have had before you the bill now before the committee, that if you wanted to amend it by this time you would have prepared some slight amendment. Secretary STIMSON. I may do that, too, if you desire that. But it would be a little more simple, and might justify a possible criticism of some of the bills, or one of the bills, if I should lay down these general principles first. I think, in other words, that any solution of the problem which lies before this committee must provide for a period of stable conditions in the islands, sufficient for the necessary economic development of that trade, to get the revenue necessary to protect the civilization which has been begun there, and to protect the interests of the small individuals who, in my opinion, would not be sufficiently protected if independence were given now. I pointed out before that to get the money necessary for that development, you have got to be able to amortize the investment you are asking the people to make. More than that, there is this other feature that helps fix the time. The Philippine Islands have quite a large debt to meet. Bonds have been floated, and have been floated on the credit, not of the Philippine government, but on the credit of the United States, the belief of the buyer being that the Government of the United States is standing behind the Philippine government. Otherwise, you could not sell bonds bearing 4~ per cent interest, which I think is the figure. General McIntyre informs me that we have some bond issues at 4 per cent, although customarily it is about 4/2 per cent. You could not possibly float bonds at that rate on the credit of the Philippine government, unless the implied representation had been made and the belief created in the mind of the investor that the United States Government stood behind it. I think you gentlemen will all agree with me that in any settlement that debt must be taken care of. I think you will also agree with me that it would not be taken care of if you simply turned it over to a new INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 675 and untried government, with a covenant such as there is in this bill as I remember it, that the new government shall provide for those bonds. New governments may have the best will in the world to provide for bonds, but that does not make their confidence always worth par. Now, those two things make it necessary that there should be time enough, in the interest of the Filipinos in the first place, and in the second place, in the interest of the people who have invested in their future welfare in the shape of these bonds, for these things to be taken care of. I do not think that can be done under 30 years. I do not think we can get the conditions necessary for stabilizing trade; I do not think you can get the conditions necessary for a stable government under that time. Now, my view is that out of this agitation which we have been having during this last year between some Members of the Congress of the United States on the one side and the leaders of the Philippines on the other-in which I have not hesitated to say it was my feeling that the initial responsibility and the initial wrong lay at the door of the Members of Congress of the United States-in the case of that double agitation you must provide in some way by a congressional declaration that there shall be a period of sufficient length to do these things before any decision on this momentous question is made. My criticism of Senator Hawes's bill is that it does not allow the necessary time. That is the first criticism I make of it. It does not allow the necessary time to do these things. That was my criticism of the old Fairfield bill, upon which Senator Hawes's bill is so largely based, that the Fairfield bill did not provide sufficient time, but it did provide much longer time than Senator Hawes's bill. As I remember, it provided 10 years, and he provides only 5 to 7. That is the first prerequisite, and that is one about which I have talked to many people. I have talked with many Filipinos, as well as many Americans, and I am sure this situation needs, not an irnnediate panacea, but an immediate stabilization of the conditions from which we have been suffereing during the agitation that has been stirred up by the coming of this tariff bill in the Congress. You may think that is an impossible condition, because any Congress, of course, could change a policy laid down by any other Congress. I do not think, however, that would be the effect if, after sufficient discussion and deliberation, a policy were laid down in an actual act of Congress. And I bear in mind the stabilized policies which lasted so long after the acts of Congress of 1909 and 1913 in regard to trade, and which have lasted so long and so potently in even the preamble of the old Jones Act of 1916. That definite declaration of policy shows how effective a statement can be, and I think the first thing in this situation is to stabilize the situation and allow the government of the Philippine Islands to go on and finish its development along both the economic and political lines I have spoken of until they can reach a point where they can reasonably hope to carry the responsibilities of independence, if they choose to exercise it. Now, in that proposition there are certain conditions which ought to be considered. I think it would be quite fair for the United States, if it made any such declaration, if it held its hands off from trade restrictions, to insist upon imposing certain conditions. At present, 676 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS for instance, I am informed by General McIntyre that, whereas, America buys 75 per cent of Philippine products exported, on the other hand, the Philippine Islands buy only about 60 per cent of their foreign requirements from America. The remedy for that is in the hands of the Philippine Legislature. I think it might be, if it meets with your judgment, a fair request to make that the Philippine government shall modify their external tariff arrangements so that they will buy as much of their requirements in the United States as the United States buys of the products of the Philippines. But that is offered only as a suggestion. I do know that when I was Governor General there had been for many years great critisicm on the part of American tobacco manufacturers. They complained that there was a hole in the Philippine tariff by which the wrappers of certain grades of cigars were imported into the Philippines from Sumatra, and then entered free into the United States. That made trouble in the United States for some time, and I brought it to the attention of the Philippine Legislature as a matter which was unjust to the United States, under the policy of free trade between the Islands and the United States, and that the benefits which we granted them through our markets with free trade with us should not be made the occasion of penalizing American manufacturers of cigars with outside foreign products. They at once remedied it. The Philippine Legislature passed an act which equalized the tariff so that it no longer became a source of complaint, and our tobacco manufacturers have quieted down, and there has been no more trouble about it. I feel, therefore, confident that if a fair proposition of that sort were put to the Philippines, they would treat it in a fair way. There is another proposition that makes trouble, and that is the question of immigration, for which I think Congress might insist upon a remedy as a condition for its action. It is my feeling, and I think it is the feeling of all who have studied the situation, that the abuses which have been arising in greater and greater measure from the uncontrolled labor immigration of Filipinos into California must be checked and stopped. There seems to be no doubt, I have no doubt because I have it both from the Filipinos I have discussed it with and from Americans I have discussed it with, that the present contact between groups of Filipino laborers and white laborers on our west coast is not beneficial either to the Filipinos or the Americans. I do not like to be dogmatic, but I believe from my talks with Filipinos, both while I was Governor General and since I have been here, that the Filipinos are just as anxious to check and stop that immigration to California as the people of California are to have it stopped. When a situation is in that position, it ought to be easy to find a remedy. The Filipinos need in the Philippine Islands all the labor that they can have, if they are going to have that economic development I have been speaking of. It is a loss to them in the Philippines to have those laborers going out. They need their work. The problem has certain complications, because in Hawaii Philippine labor has become, unlike in California, a very valuable and basic part of the prosperity of the Hawaiian Islands. I know that, because I have been in Hawaii and I have talked with them about it. The Fi`ipino laborers there, in the opinion of the people, who were resFonsible people from the governor down who talked with me, have been a INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 677 source of great benefit to Hawaii. I believe it would be possible for the Philippine Legislature, by an appropriate control of labor contracts, by some regulation of labor-and I speak after talking with General McIntyre on the subject-I believe it would be possible for the Philippine Legislature to regulate that so as to prevent what is the present trouble of having men go ostensibly to the Hawaiian Islands and then continue on to California. I will not go into details now, for our time is growing shorter, but I looked over General McIntyre's proposition, and I think it is quite possible. About all I want to say is that I think the way to solve that would be to give the Philippine Legislature a limited time, say one session, to handle that matter, with the understanding that if they did not handle it within that time, then it should be handled by Congress. Now, the third question I wish to touch upon in respect to this matter is simply this, and then I am at an end and will stop. Meani while, during this 30-year period, some consideration should be given to the qeustion of what should be the government of the islands. I believe that the development in the meanwhile should be under the Jones law, and my own view-I am giving my own personal views on that-is that it should be along the lines which seemed to be so successfully working a year ago. That is my own personal view. I think that course should be pursued, in view of the fact that we havea law which has worked successfully, and under which some of the most intelligent of the Filipinos have expressed themselves to me as feeling that an adequate development is quite possible, and that they were perfectly satisfied with the situation. But I do not mean to say I am bigoted and obstinate in not considering other methods. There are very grave difficulties in such other methods that I have seen, in the shape of the Fairfield bill and in the shape of the Cutting-Hawes bill. One principal trouble that neither of those bills pays any attention to is this: Civilization in the Tropics depends upon one very important thing. That is sanitation. It is quite unlike the temperate zone. We have already had an example in the Philippine Islands of what would happen if effective scientific supervision of sanitation were prematurely relaxed. Neither of these bills makes any provision for supervision of that, so far as I could see in my hasty reading of Senator Hawes's bill, and a previous reading of the other. The only provision for control which those bills make during this iterim is for a very limited control of external finances. That leaves out of consideration another control which I think is highly important, which the history of the Philippines has shown is vitally important. That is the control of internal finances.. We had an example 10 or 12 years ago of the result of a premature relaxation of the control of internal finances, bringing the insular government into practical bankruptcy. The third thing which makes me think the Jones Act is better than either the Hawes bill or the Fairfield bill is that neither of those bills, provides for two things which are now exercised by the Governor General. One is the direct authority over law and order and breaches of the peace, in cases of emergency. While the Filipinos are a very peaceful people, and while the constabulary is a very efficient body, there is reason to believe that the constabulary owes its present efficiency in large part to the momentum which was originally given to it by the training of the very remarkable group of American officers, 678 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS who have almost all retired and gone. I do think that you will have to make better provision than either of these bills makes for that control. In the next place, and this is rather more difficult to define, Senator Hawes, unless you live in the Philippines, but it is a very important thing-unless you are familiar with the Orient, it is a very difficult thing to define now. That is what is given in the Jones law as the supervisory power of the Governor General, which means in the Orient the personal influence of the first figure of the islands. That does not mean very much in America, though it means a good deal here, but it means a good deal more in the Orient. Through that personal influence a good deal of the good influence of America has been exercised. It is a system of influence to which the oriental is much more accustomed than the American. I think there would be a falling off if that influence were removed, as is proposed in these bills and that instead of having a Governor General you have a mere commissioner. All I can say is that I have talked it over very carefully with many sincere friends of the Filipinos, and they feel that it is very important. In other words, a Governor General could become, if necessary, so far as active control is concerned, very much of a figurehead; but so long as he has the reserve power given him by the Jones Act, and if it were known that that reserve power could be exercised, so long as he had the prestige of being the Governor General, he could exercise the influence along the innumerable paths where influence is needed by a learning people, which a commissioner could not do. I do not mean to say that situation must be continued forever. The Filipino has made tremrendous growth in the developfment of individuality, but I do feel very strongrl tJhi.t it is needed at present. But with this situation, with a period of economic stability provided for, for a sufficient length of time to permit the development of the revenues of the islands, I think you will then apprioach the question which is the object of this bill with a much greater chance of success than with the time allowed in your bill. There is one other criticism I would like to mention of your bill. Senator HIAWES. I wish you would call that the Cutting-Hawes bill. It is the joint product of the Senator from New Mexico and myself. Secretary STIMsoN. I am only doing that because you asked me for criticism. Senator HAWES. You referred to it as the Hawes bill. It is the Cutting-Hawes bill. Senator STIMSON. I do it merely for the sake of brevity. I will call it anything you want me to call it. The Cutting-Hawes bill provides for a period of four years, during each year of which the tariff between the United States and the Philippine Islands shall go up 25 per cent. Senator HAwES. Let me call your attention to the fact that we have a proposition by Senator Vandenberg which proposes identically the same thing that is not accompanied by independence. Secretary STIMSON. I did not know that. Perhaps you will do me the credit of believing that I read your bill, because I thought it was probably the most thoughtful and most careful bill that had been drawn. Not having the time to read all the bills, I read Senator Cutting's and yours. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN)S 679 Now, I understand from what you have told me the very praiseworthy purpose of such a provision, but I have very grave doubts as to how it would work. When I think of the necessity of economic stability in the Philippine Islands, I do not think a change in the tariff each year for four years will work for economic stability. When I see what has happened in this country from just a debate on the tariff for one year, it makes me think that if the business of the Philippine Islands faced a tariff change on every article between the islands and the United States of 25 per cent each year for four years, instead of having the period of development and growth and tranquillity which is necessary for development, you would have nothing but a constant turmoil and discontent and uncertainty for the four years, which would produce a rather worse situation at the end of it than you had at the beginning. Senator HAwES. Mr. Secretary, I wish you would permit me to ask a question. You are going into a broad field now. Secretary STIMSON. I am trying to do what I understood you wanted me to do. You asked me to criticize the Cutting-Hawes bill. Those are the objections that I see to it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, does that conclude your statement? Secretary STIMSON. That concludes my statement. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, I am quite sure that every member of this committee, the same as yourself, wants to do the best he can for the Philippine people and for our own people. I want to ask you this question, which I asked you in executive session: Do you favor the ultimate independence of the Philippines? Secretary STIMSON. I can best answer that by saying what I have said many, many times here and in the islands. What I favor is a carrying out of our duty to the Philippines, which was, as I understand it, to fit them for a democratic self-government, up to the time when they are fit to stand on their own legs and be independent, if they want to; and if they then want to be independent, I should certainly not prevent them by force from being independent. But I should not be answering your question fully if I did not say that when that time comes, I hope it will be the decision of the Philippine people, as well as the United States, that their interests, that the interests of both countries, would be better promoted by retaining a connection with each other, both economic and governmental, than it would be by separating. But that would be a decision which must be made freely by both countries in the light of intelligence and knowledge, and also of the assurance they would not come to grief when they do it, if they should choose to be independent, because I feel if they should choose to be independent and come to grief, and it could be said it came from our turning them loose prematurely, they would blame us in a way from which we could never defend ourselves. Senator CUTTING. Mr. Chairman, I understand the speaker (Speaker Roxas) would like to make a statement before the Secretary leaves. The time is getting short. Senator HAWES. I understand the Secretary has an engagement at 1 o'clock. Senator CUTTING. I hope we shall be permitted more time to questidn the Secretary and others. The speaker asked to be permitted to make a statement in the presence of the Secretary, before he leaves. The CHAIRMAN. You have an appointment, have you not? 680 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Secretary STIMSON. Yes. Senator HAWES. On this matter of independence, the evidence before us is that both branches of the Philippine Legislature, all the newspapers of the Philippines, both Commissioners here, all the representatives of the government, and the citizens and business men, are asking for independence. Now, I ask you this question: If that is the situation in the Philippines, and they are persistently and unitedly making continuous demands for independence, would you still think that, despite their own unanimity of opinion, it should be denied them? Secretary STIMSON. May I ask you to clarify your question in this respect: Do you mean to say those gentlemen you speak of are asking for immediate independence? Senator HAWES. Yes; and I am opposed to it. Secretary STIMSON. If that is to be a public question Senator HAWES. It is a public question. Secretary STIMSON. Then I would have to make a statement in reply to that which I rather hesitate to do in the light of the fact that it may subject some of these gentlemen to criticism from some of their own people. Senator HAWES. I think they will have no objection to it. In fact, Mr. Secretary, I think there are many statements of fact you should clear up in some way, or explain or elaborate upon, matters in respect to which you were asked to appear before this committee. The implication, of course, is that they are all opposed to independence. Secretary STIMSON. Oh, no; I did not make any such assertion. I will tell you what I said, if you want me to. Senator HAWES. As far as I am concerned, I want to know. Mr. MANUEL ROXAS. Will the Secretary yield for a second? Secretary STIMSON. Certainly. Mr. RoxAs. This is, I am sure, a very embarrassing situation. The Secretary, whom we respect, has in his statement made reference to our point of view and he mentioned particularly some members of the Philippine commission. I do not want to take the time of your committee, but I want to say emphatically, first, that our delegation is officially, privately, and sincerely for the independence of our country as soon as possible. I desire to say also that, in order to remove any misapprehension, in view of the statement the Secretary has made, that none of the members of the delegation has requested the Secretary to appear before this committee. We have conferred with the Secretary of State but in those conferences we merely stated that we hoped, if he was going to appear, knowing he was opposed to independence, he would at least propose a solution of this problem. We impressed upon his mind that the present situation was unsatisfactory both to America and to the Philippines. The Secretary knows that our delegation is for independence. Nevertheless he told us he thought it would be disastrous to the Philippines. When we appeared before this committee there was not one Filipino who denied that the abrupt and immediate severance of relations between the United States and the Philippine Islands would affect adversely Philippine economic conditions. In my testimony before this committee, I said that if America is sincerely desirous of INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 681 protecting the Filipinos in this regard the way out of it was to grant independence and to permit a period of readjustment of economic relations between the two countries. But we argued that if in the wisdom of America that was not an expedient and wise thing to do, we were willing to take the consequences of independence, whatever they may be. We prefer that those consequences occur now, when we believe we have the power to stand the shock, rather than wait for 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, when our economic system will be so interwoven in the warp and woof of America's economic system when it would be difficult to bring about separation, and our production would be much larger than it is now, and when it would then be harder for us to stand the disruption of those relations. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Speaker, you will be permitted to express your views on the bill, if you desire. I thought you merely desired to make a brief statement. Secretary STIMSON. I want to ask the Speaker whether he heard me say when I opened that I was opposed to immediate independence. Mr. RoxAs. I knew that all the time. Secretary STIMSON. YOU heard me say in the opening that I was opposed to immediate independence. Mr. RoxAs. Yes, sir. Secretary STIMSON. You did not hear me say I was opposed to independence, except as I stated in the last part of my testimony, that I hoped that when the time of decision came the result would be that both countries would decide it was to their interest to stay together. Mr. RoxAs. Yes, sir. Secretary STIMSON. You heard that? Mr. ROxAs. Yes. Secretary STIMSON. You have heard me say that many times? Mr. RoxAS. Yes. Secretary STIMSON. There is no misunderstanding about my position. Mr. ROXAS. Absolutely not. But if you will allow me a few minutes more, this is very important, and we feel quite keenly about itSecretary STIMSON. I sympathize fully with the position of these gentlemen. That is one of the reasons that I desired very strongly that we should go into executive session yesterday. Mr. RoxAS. I want to make it plain that there is no one in the Philippines who does not believe that a sudden disruption of our economic relations would produce serious embarrassment to our economic system. We do believe it. We have said so many times, and it is in the record. But we feel that rather than permit present conditions to continue, and postpone independence indefinitely, we desire to meet those difficulties now. That is why in our conference with the Secretary we appealed to him that, when he appeared before this committee, he propose a definite solution of our problem. Secretary STIMSON. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you no doubt understand the proposition I make is that there should be a period of a certain time, and that it is the duty of Congress to fix that, if possible? Mr. RoxAs. Yes. 682 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Secretary STIMSON. But that period should be, in my opinion, at least 30 years. Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir; I understand that. Secretary STIMSON. And I gave the reasons why I felt it should be 30 years. Have I ever concealed those views from you? Mr. RoxAs. No; neither to me nor to the people of the islands. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, as I understand it, then, you do favor the ultimate independence of the Philippines, under certain conditions? Secretary STIMSON. If they desire it. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest, in order that Senator Hawes and others may ask such questions of the Secretary as they desire, that we secure the transcript of the testimony at the earliest possible moment, so we may have an opportunity to look it over, and arrange for another meeting at which the Secretary will be asked to appear. Senator HAWES. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to ask any more questions. I did, but it was delayed so long, and the uncertainty of committee meetings is so great, that I will waive any further questions of the Secretary, much to my regret. I know it is not the fault of the Secretary. (The representatives of the Filipinos submitted the following statement for the record:) MAY 21, 1930. We beg leave to state that the Philippine delegation did not request the Secretary of State to appear before the Senate Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs. M. ROXAS. JUAN SUMULONG. MANUEL BRIONES. PEDRO GIL. PEDRO GUEVARA. CAMILO OSIAS. (The statement of Secretary Stimson on Thursday, October 24, 1929, before a subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, referred to in his testimony, is herewith printed in full:) Secretary STIMSON. Senator, I am sorry I have been obliged to ask for delay in this matter, but, as you may imagine, the last week or two have been rather congested as to time. Senator JOHNSON. Yes, indeed. Secretary STIMSON. I have received from you the minutes of the previous hearings, and I have read them over as carefully as I could. Of course, you understand that I am not here to attempt to give you figures on the trade which lies at the bottom of this subject. Such technical aspects have been given to you by others. But I thought I might be able to suggest some general views of the question as it has been presented to me, both in the office in which I now am and also during the time I was Governor of the Philippines. Senator JOHNSON. May I say to you we should be very glad indeed to have that expression of your views. I wanted you to understand that the resolution is Senator Vandenberg's and that he was exceedingly sorry that he can not be here this morning. He is delivering an impassioned plea for casein, an item of the tariff bill in which he is keenly interested, and therefore he is unable to be here; and he wishes me to make his apology to you for not being here. Secretary STIMSON. My excuse for coming, Senator, was my recognition of the fact of how very much more important domestic matters like casein are to the average American in comparison with the broadest questions of international finance or trade. [Laughter.] Senator JOHNSON. Exactly. Secretary STIMSON. Well, gentlemen, I shall take up this subject from three aspects: First, from its effect upon the development of the Philippines and the interests of the Philippine people; second, from its effect upon that same develop INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 683 ment regarded from the standpoint of the American people and our interests in the islands; and, third, from its -effect upon our general interest in the general commerce of the Orient which surrounds the Philippines. And from each of those standpoints I am of the opinion that the application of the coastwise laws of the United States to the Philippine Islands would be a very grave mistake and a serious injury. Now, taking those three viewpoints in that order, beginning with the interests of the islands and their people, I am not going to argue the facts and the details of whether or not it would raise rates because, in reading the minutes of the past proceedings here I found that that was so fully discussed that practically it seems to be admitted that the extension of these laws was for the very purpose of stopping competition, and that it was proposed with the very intent of enabling American shipping to start higher prices; that, therefore, it could be pretty well assumed that it was designed to permit the raising of rates and that it would raise rates, as well as making a barrier to that extent on the trade of the islands. Certainly every time the matter has come up in the past 30 years-and it has been coming up again and again-it has been the opinion of everybody who studied it that this would be its effect. So, as I say, I am not going to argue it; I am simply going to start on the assumption that that is what it is intended to do and is what it would do. That being so, everything that I said before the House Ways and Means Committee on the subject of the effect of a barrier to that trade in the shape of a tariff will apply also to this kind of a barrier, with the addition that it is a little more of a brutal, frank, rough barrier; and, also, in my opinion, an ineffective barrier for the purpose it is put on, namely, of helping the shipping. Perhaps I can best bring the picture to your minds by telling you the situation which I confronted in the islands when the other tariff barrier was first discussed there, and the effect which I saw produced on the development which we all were trying to produce there. You may or may not remember that when I went out to the islands the fundamental plank in my program of procedure was to urge and to try to get the people of the islands to join in a movement for the greater economic development of their own resources. That seemed to be the thing which was necessary now in order to accomplish the general purpose for which we have been holding the islands for the last 30 years. Great progress has been made in political lines, great progress has been made in educational lines. But the foundation element of the development of commerce and business had lagged rather behind the others, and we were in about this situation: We went over there and we took a Malay people, not differing very much from the Malays in other portions of the Orient, and we announced that we were going to give them a western government and a western civilization. We were perhaps a little oblivious of how much Spain had already accomplished along that line, but we deserve a great deal of credit for the character of that ideal and for the unselfishness with which we pursued it. In that 30 years we have, with the help of the good will and the capacity of our pupils, made tremendous progress. We have inculcated that people with a western appetite for the good things of life that go with western civilization. We have raised their standard of living until it is from 100 to 200 or 300 per cent above that of the surrounding oriental peoples that they are in contact with. But that was only a small step in the direction at which we were aiming; and we have been slow and they have been slow in producing the means of satisfying that hunger which we have taught them to have. This has come partly because s of the care which the American Congress has exercised in the organic law which governs the distribution of their land. Now, from that very slowness the thing that is now most important in the islands is to develop the business and the commerce of the islands so as to furnish to the people the foundation for the things in civilization that they have grown to appreciate-for their new roads, for their 3 schoolhouses, for the expenses of better administration-those are the marvelous things that are making the changes in the Philippine Islands to-day in their life, and which are transforming them from a group of oriental tribes, differing in language and in history and in many other respects into a single homogeneous people. There are more miles of improved roads in the Island of Luzon to-day, so I am told-I know what it is in Luzon-than in the whole continent of South America outside of the cities; and that is true all through the archipelago. You see to-day instead of caribao carts traveling roads which were almost impassable every rainy season, motor busses full of travelers every few minutes traveling along roads that compare very favorably with our own and which bring the 684 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS people closer and closer together, making them more and more homogeneous and fitting them to carry on the part that 30 years ago we announced we were trying to fit them for. But all that costs money and all of that means taxation, and all of that has to be based upon commercial development of the islands which will support such taxation. So when I went out there a year ago, feeling very strongly that all this was necessary and that our revenues there had not increased proportionately to the demands upon them, I urged the people to join in efforts to develop intelligently the commerce and the natural resources of the islands. Of course, that meant to borrow the necessary capital to produce such a development-always under the restrictions which I spoke of a few minutes ago, going slowly in so far as the protection against foreign exploitation should be concerned. Well, the Filipinos are not a commercial people by training or instinct-they are an agricultural people. Agriculture is the great thing in the islands, as well as its great strength. The islands are divided into small farms and not into large estates. The Filipinos are good seamen but they are not experienced business men, and it was a good deal of a proposition to them to rise to; and so far, of course, as getting foreign capital was concerned that was slow, because it was new, because it was far away, because American capital had gotten to be rather timid about the Philippines, and the construction of the whole thing had to be begun from the bottom. But we were making great progress. One of our first steps which brought forward the cooperative efforts of the Filipinos was a reform of the corporation laws. That proposal excited a great debate not only in the Philippine Legislature, but in all the public press, as to whether or not the Filipino people wanted this new development of civilization or whether they were going to be suspicious of America and think that America was trying to enslave them. It was a very interesting thing to have, because it produced a very general discusssion. And if anybody thinks there is no public opinion in the islands they simply do not know what they are talking about. As a result of that discussion and as a result of the debate in the legislature, the cause of progress won, and not only the corporation laws were passed but a succession of other good statutes were passed. We not only reformed the corporation laws, we not only reformed the banking laws, but we improved the irrigation laws so as to improve waste parts of the island. We granted some new telephone franchises, water-power franchiseswhich had lagged rather badly; communication was very slow and poor there. And just before I came away we had the first congress of Filipino business men that ever met in the islands. About two weeks before my departure some 2,000 Filipino business men met in Manila in the same wnay that one of our American business congresses would meet and discuss all of the questions that interest business men, in much the same way that our people would do, something that had never been done before. At the same time, from the standpoint of the encouragement of American capital, there were very encourgaing signs, indicating that that timid article was becoming assured that there was something in this new movement. For example, Mr. Robert Dollar came to Manila and talked the matter over with me and told me that he had been watching and had come to the conclusion that there was enough in this to make him do what 25 years ago he had decided deliberately not to do, namely, to move his repair shops and his eastern center of operations to the Philipines, and also to build some new ships and to go into the interisland trade; and before I left they had brought me the plans of their two new ships that they propored to put into the interisland traffic to meet the new development and to fill one of the greatest deficiencies in the islands, because their interisland shipping had not kept up with the requirements. That is only one instance. The California Packing Co. came to me before I came away and said they had decided to extend their pineapple business definitely to the Philippines. And they thereupon acquired a site for their first canning factory. There is no use going into more details, but I could tell you from the number of visitors and the tone of the conversations it really seemed, so far as we could tell, to mark the beginning of a new era of encouragement in the development of American commerce in the islands. Well, right in the middle of that came the news of the introduction of the Timberlake resolution proposing to limit the amount of Philippine sugar which could enter the United States, and of the action of a number of trade associations in the United States, asking one after another that the principal prod INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 685 ucts of the Philippines should be cut out from the United States market; and to the Filipino people who had responded to my encouragement that was like a blow in the face. You could see it in their countenances. It was discussed on every street corner. It struck at the very foundation upon which all of this effort was predicated. Capital at once withered up, because capital at once recognized that this was not a thing to be measured by the amount or damage that would be done by any particular restriction, but that if the American prople abandoned the old attitutde that they had taken and it was once established that they would stop one article or impose one restriction contrary to that general principle, there was no telling what might be done in the future; and capital was unwilling to come in under those conditions. Correspondingly, this summer, although I have been 10,000 miles away, I have received very strong evidence of the reassuring effect that has been given when the House of Representatives decided against these restrictions this summer. I have been hearing from the Philippines, in most unmistakable terms of the reencouragement that had come when they found that the general public opinion of the United States seemed to be so strongly against the restrictions which had so frightened the Filipinos. This has come, both from their newspapers and from statements of their public men made to me, and the echo of which has come back even at this distance. Now, that gives you, in a personal way the picture of the effect which has been produced upon this sensitive people. They feel that they depend entirely on the good faith of this country in carrying out promises which Mr. McKinley and Mr. Root and Mr. Taft 30 years ago announced in their respective capacities as President, Secretary of War, and Governor General, as the purposes of the United States toward the islands when they promised that the interests of the islands would be the governing policy of the United States. Correspondingly, to pass a resolution or a statute which extends a shipping system which is solely in the interest of the United States and against the interest of the islands-not only a check upon its trade, but against the whole fundamental interests of the islands-particularly when our other shipping laws now prevent Filipinos from taking part in commerce with this country as sailors, would destroy that element of confidence upon which the ultimate solution of the relation of the Philippines and America depend. I feel that you went into a discussion yesterday as to the ultimate future, and I think it is, perhaps, relevant and proper to speak of it here, because it leads up to the second one of my points, namely, our own interest in Philippine development. May I say I am not one of those who regard America's position in respect to the islands as purely altruistic. I think it is a case where altruism is united with enlightened self-interest. I am one of those who believe that our connection with the Philippines is now and to an infinitely greater extent will be in the future, of enormous benefits to this country in respect to its general position in the Orient. The Philippine Archipelago General Wood used to call the "Spear point of Christian civilization in the Orient," and that is what it is-it is a little body of 12,000,000 people, 11,000,000 of whom are Christians, situated in a great ocean of similar races but of entirely different civilization and entirely different religion. It is what the French words point d'appui signify, the point of rest, of the western civilization in the great ocean of Buddhism. And, in my opinion, the fact that that little group of islands has merited that appelation means more to America in the future than all the missionary efforts, noble as those are, that have ever taken place there. This is because it is an effort of As the American Government-it is a part of our system; it is in its effects, we hope, permanent, and it grows from the ground up. On the other hand, while I thus believe tremendously in the importance of our connection with that group of islands, I want to make it equally clear that I am equally confident that this connection of ours with the islands can only be successfully maintained, not by force, but by good will and by the development, of the consciousness that it is mutually to the advantage of both sides. We have gotten beyond the cave-man age in regard to colonial development, just as we have in regard to marriage-we do not and we can not now hold colonies by force. If we are trying to hold them permanently or advantageously or satisfactorily, it must be a union which depends upon the consent of both sides and upon the mutual advantage to both sides. It deepnds upon the public opinion of both sides, and, while I frankly am a strong believer and hoper for the continued existence of the connection between the Philippines and the United States, I am equally convinced that this can only be done by the Filipinos giving their entire consent and their willing agreement. Furthermore, I can say that 686 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS from my year's experience there I became of the opinion that with enlightened policy on the part of this country, such a result was perfectly possible. No country, no people respond more quickly to kind treatment or more intelligently to intelligent treatment than the Filipino people. When you come to such a situation it is well to pause and look and listen in regard to our attitude and in regard to the experience of ourselves in colonial matters and of other peoples in colonial matters as to what will produce good will and what will produce successful relations between countries like ours and the Filipinos. It is right in that connection that you can find some very interesting history on the subject of coastwise legislation, because no country has had a monopoly of intelligence or a monopoly of ignorance on that matter. I have had made up, and I am going to file with you if you care to have it, a memorandum by the economic advisor of the State Department, giving very roughly and briefly a history of restrictive shipping legislation on the part of different countries. Senator JOHNSON. May we insert that in the record? Secretary STIMSON. Yes; I have it here, and I offer it if you care to have it. It is brief, but it, in substance, shows that whereas 300 years ago the doctrine of the relation of a mother country to a colony was that the colony existed for the benefit of the mother country entirely; and whereas one of the wars in which Great Britain as well as Spain sought to make the colony useful to the mother country was to forbid that any other ships than the mother country's ships should trade with it. Now that doctrine has been practically entirely given up so far as strict colonial possessions are concerned, and restrictions of that kind have been gradually confined to the coast lines of the mother country itself. (The document submitted by Secretary Stimson follows:) "In the early period of modern colonial history the European GovernmentsSpain, Porttgal, Holland, and Great Britain-regarded their American, African, and Asiatic colonies as sources of wealth to be monopolized and exploited by the mother country. The principle of monopoly applied to all phases of the colonial trade-to the colony as a market, to the colony as a source of raw materials, gold, or commercial luxuries such as spices, silk, and sugar, and to the carrying trade between colony and mother country. The monopoly was fortified by absolute prohibitions sanctioned sometimes by even a death penalty. It was a criminal offense for foreign vessels to approach Spanish colonial ports; and if they came, commerce with them was punishable by death. Trade with the Portuguese colonies was a Portuguese Government monopoly. Holland farmed its East Indian colonies out to a monopolistic company. "Great Britain by its navigation acts of 1651 and 1660 decreed that goods could be imported into or exported from the British plantations in Asia, Africa, or America only in vessels owned and built by the people of the realm, Ireland, and the English plantations. The master of the ship and three-fourths of the crew must be English. The products or manufactures of Asia, Africa, or America could be imported only in vessels built, owned, and operated as described above. The British Government found difficulty in enforcing these laws with respect to the thirteen American Colonies and they were laxly administered until 1764, when the attempt to enforce them rigidly produced an immediate resentment which contributed largely to bringing on the American Revolution of 1776. "After the American Revolution these laws continued to exclude American vessels from the British West Indies and North American colonies, the natural channels for American trade at that time. The struggle to obtain admittance to the West Indies trade was one of the chief preoccupations of American commercial and foreign policy during the first 40 years of the Union. Vessels under the British flag from any destination in the world could enter our ports, whereas our vessels continued to be excluded entirely from the British West Indian and North American ports. American vessels engaged in the British trade were confined practically to direct voyages between the United Kingdom and the United States (or between the British East Indies and the United States), whereas British vessels operated over the triangular route, two sides of which were closed to American-flag vessels. In the attempt to obtain the removal of these restrictions the United States on April 18, 1818, enacted a law closing the ports of the United States to British vessels entering from or clearing to ports which were closed to ships of the United States. This resulted in nearly four years of complete nonintercourse between the United States and the British colonies. In 1822 the British Parliament opened some of the colonial ports to United States vessels trading directly between the United States and the colonies and the INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 687 United States in 1823 responded by suspending the exclusion of British vessels coming from these "free ports" but retaining the restrictions as to the closed ports. After further difficulties Congress passed the act of May 29, 1830, authorizing the President to issue a proclamation opening the ports of the United States to British vessels and cargoes arriving from the colonial possessions subject to no higher duty on tonnage or impost, or charge of any description, than would be levied on vessels of the United States arriving with similar cargoes from the same places, whenever he should receive evidence that the British colonial ports would be open to vessels of the United States on like terms. On October 5, 1830, President Jackson issued his proclamation declaring that"'British vessels and their cargoes are admitted to any entry in the ports of the United States, from the islands, Provinces, and colonies of Great Britain, on or near the North American continent, and north or east of the United States.' "The British Government on November 5, 1830, issued an order in council 'that the ships of and belonging to the said United States of America may import from the United States aforesaid, into the British possessions abroad, goods and produce of those States and may export goods from the British possessions abroad to be carried to any foreign country whatever.' "Discriminations continued in the indirect trade with Great Britain until that Government repealed its restrictive navigation laws in 1849, effective January 1, 1850, opening to foreign vessels the traffic between the colonial ports and the mother country (reserving only the coasting trade of the United Kingdom), and permitting foreign vessels to import cargoes from any source whatever. In 1853 the restriction on British coasting trade was also removed. "During this long struggle there were frequent statements by American statesmen that the United States favored a liberal navigation policy and that its laws providing discrimination against foreign shipping were defensive. This attitude was crystallized in the law of May 24, 1828, which is still in effect, abolishing discriminations against foreign vessels on condition of reciprocal exemption. This, the reciprocal granting of national treatment of shipping, has become the practically universal practice of nations. The recognized exception to this practice is that in favor of coasting trade. While there is no accepted definition of coasting trade, European countries have not interpreted the phrase as applying to their colonial trade." Secretary STIMSON. History also shows how we have taken a part in that development so far as Great Britain was concerned. Senator JOHNSON. You refer to the navigation laws? Secretary STIMSON. The navigation laws. We all remember our colonial history of navigation laws in 1764 were one of the main grievances that led up to our revolution, and after the revolution, after we had put ourselves outside of those navigation laws, and found ourselves cut off from the other British colonies, we fought for more than 50 years to have them changed, so that we could trade with the British West Indies, and it was not until 50 years afterwards that Great Britain adopted her present enlightened policy of allowing free shipping to her colonies, in which we benefited as well as her clonoies. Not only in Great Britain but in the colonial dependencies of other nations that same policy has gradually won until now Holland, with her great colonies out near our Philippines, allows foreign shipping of any country that gives reciprocal rights to trade with the Netherlands to trade with Java and Sumatra. Note that I say "reciprocal." If we put on coastwise restrictions on the Philippines American ships would be kept out of Java and Sumatra. I see you were asking whether there was any danger of retaliation. Such retaliation by Holland would be automatic. Senator RANSDELL. Would the British retaliate, too? Secretary STIMSON. I can not prophesy about what any other nation would do. I can only tell you that about seven years ago when this was discussed a very strong agitation took place in Great Britain for retaliation, but it did not become necessary because we did not do this. Senator RANSDELL. The threat was made, however? Secretary STIMSON. The threat was made so far as the public agitation for it could make a threat. Senator RANSDELL. Yes. Secretary STIMSON. The Government did not say anything, so far as I know. But what I want to point out is that the whole trend of events is against us on any such policy as that, not, I think, for any other reason than that these other countries learned successively that the best policy was an unselfish treatment of their own colonies in these respects. 92109-30-rT 7- 3 688 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS The moral of all this long statement on this last point of mine is that if we should adopt a policy of shipping toward the Filipinos which was intended to put in a barrier to their trade, we would grievously affront their confidence in us, and thereby grievously injure the chance of that development with us of a relation which I believe would be highly beneficial to us in the decades to come. Senator JOHNSON. And in that direction that would be also true in respect to the tariff? Secretary STIMSON. Absolutely. I have already made that statement before the House Ways and Means Committee. Senator JOHNSON. I simply wanted to get it in the record of a Senate committee. Secretary STIMSON. I am talking now of American interests in the Philippines. That subject is twofold, and I am speaking of the first part of it-that is, our interest in our future trade with the Philippines. I think that is increasingly valuable and will be valuable, but there is also a second part that merges right in, and that is the effect which the picture of a happy and contented Filipino archipelago connected with America will have upon America's interest in the rest of the Orient. That brings me to my third point, and that, I think, is the most important of all in its relations to us, because at present, if I am correct in my figures, our trade with the Philippines is only about 10 per cent of our trade with the rest of the Orient. Am I right in those figures, General McIntyre? General MCINTYRE. About 10 per cent. Secretary STIMSON. It is about 10 per cent. So that, although it is a very valuable trade, it is insignificant compared with our trade with the rest of the Orient. Now, on that I want to point out what the effect of a selfish policy toward the Philippines would be. Remember that under my predecessor, John Hay, our position in the Orient was built up on the policy of the "open door." That is the,only weapon we used. We have no concessions in China such as other nations have-I mean territorial concessions; and we stand in a rather unique position in that respect, because the Chinese know that we have not and we are able to stand before them as a people who do not hold any of their land, but whose interest with them is solely based on our demand that we shall have equal treatment with everybody else in respect to the commerce which we are asking for and which we tell them will be equally beneficial to them as it is to us. That is a position that they can understand, and it is all based upon the principle of the 'open door." Well, now the one great change that has gone over China in the last five years has been the singular change in the rapidity of communication of ideas on certain topics or slogans. That is a thing that has astonished all the old-timers in China-all the people who are fond of telling you how much more they know than you do about China because they have been there 30 or 40 years and you have not; they have all been surprised by the terrific change that showed itself in 1926, I think it was, or 1925, when there occurred some riots in Shanghai in which some Chinese students were killed by the police. Unfortunately for British interests, the chief of police happened to be an Englishman, although it is not shown that he was responsible any more than anybody else for the occurrence or that the shooting was not justifiable. Yet it went all over China in a flash in a way which would not have been dreamed of 30 years before, that riots had occurred and that Chinese students had been killed by English police. Well, the result was almost magical, and a boycott resulted against British goods which produced results which nobody prior to that time had dreamed of. That is just one instance, but it brought to light for the first time that China now has means of communication in regard to outside foreign occurrences which she did not use to have and she is paying attention to that in a way that she never used to. If we should take a step toward our wards in the Philippines which was inconsistent with the policy that we pride ourselves on and boast of in China, this would at once be reported all through China as a selfish imperialistic step, whether it be in the form of a tariff or whether it be in the form of a selfish extension of restrictive shipping legislation. The resulting effect on our interests in China would be incalculable now, enormously greater than it would have been 10 years ago. I could tell you most interesting stories which show how close the interchange of news is between our native leaders in the Philippines and the nationalist leaders in China. It perfectly assures me of what would happen in the case that either one of them got a grievance against us. In other words, what I am trying to INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 689 bring home to you is that there is a public opinion in the Orient now which did not exist a little while ago and that our trade and our relations to the Orient depends on that; and that underneath that, therefore, our relations in the Orient, great as they will be, will depend upon our reputation for fair dealing and good will and in nothing will we be judged more sharply and critically than in the way in which we keep our promises with those Filipino people who 30 years ago we announced to the world we should govern in their interests and not in our interests. That is the situation which the Congress of the United States, in all its connections and relations to the Orient, must bear in mind. The world is tied up together with bonds of communication and intelligence which it did not have a few years ago; and here 10,000 miles away, in Washington, with our domestic affairs before us of importance, we must not forget that these other things are of great importance also and of constantly growing importance. Of course, you gentlemen realize how tremendously they are growing. I, again, am speaking from memory in figures, but my recollection is that our oriental trade has quadrupled since the war, at an infinitely greater rate of development than our trade toward Europe and the East. I am one of those, though I do not have the advantage of living in California, Mr. Chairman, who have been looking toward the West. I am a great believer in the Pacific development. I think that is the area of great future world development, and I do beg of you not to do anything which will, as I truly believe this proposition would, mar that great and important future which 50 years from now those Americans living then will regard as perfectly enormous compared with anything we think of now. Senator JOHNSON. You know for 40 years I have had not only the dream but -the sense as well to believe that the future activity of the world ultimately would be in the West. Senator FLETCHER. Would that whole situation be affected in the case of Philippine independence? Secretary STIMSON. Why, of course, if independence should come in a way that would completely sever the ties with the United States; the obligation would cease as well as the advantage. I am one of those who believe the advantages, provided they are dealt with in this enlightened way I speak of, far outweigh the obligations, and with every year that passes will outweigh them more. Senator FLETCHER. Can you tell us whether the capital invested in sugar in the Philippines is American capital or foreign capital, largely? I do not care about the exact figures. Secretary STIMSON. I have got here my memorandums I submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. These are the figures on that, sir, as I remember it. So far as the ownership of sugar lands is concerned, $73,000,000 are owned by Filipinos. There has been a good deal of talk about the Spaniards owning sugar interests, but only $9,900,000 are owned by Spaniards, and $6,300,000 are owned by Americans. But, as I say, $73,000,000 are owned by the Filipinos themselves. When it comes to the improvements on the lands-the centrals-$40,000,000 are owned by the Filipinos; $21,000,000 are owned by the Americans and only $20,000,000 by Spaniards. Now, as to those Spanish, I happen to know them; and they are not investments from Spain; they are investments of Spanish citizens who have had their investments there since before our occupation and who have lived there and who have been debarred by our laws from becoming American citizens. But they are by long residence, by association, and by habit of mind Filipinos. This story that has gotten round that sugar is a foreign industrial development in the Philippines under our flag and brought in here for the benefit of other nations is a pure fiction. Senator FLETCHER. These Spaniards are really citizens of the Philippine Islands? Secretary STIMSON. The two great companies there called "Spanish"one of them is the Tabacalera Co., which has been for 48 years in the Philippine Islands, and the other Ynchausti & Co., which have been there for 75 years. Those are the two principal ones which own sugar interests as shown by the figures I have just read. The men who are the leaders in that last company, Ynchausti & Co., are now in the third generation of owners who have been born iq the Philippine Islands. I knew them all. Senator FLETCHER. They lived there? Secretary STIMSON. They have lived there for three generations. Senator RANSDELL. What is the total tonnage of sugar in the Philippines now, Mr. Secretary? 690 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Secretary STIMSON. On that I can speak only in general terms unless I have got it here. I am only too glad to speak on this subject of sugar, if you want to take the time on it. I find I have the figures here. I have got the exports and I will give them to you in a minute. Senator RANSDELL. Yes, if you will. Secretary STIMSON. It is something which has also been greatly misrepresented. There has been no increase in sugar lands in the Philippines for the last 50 years, substantially. I have here the figures in this memorandum showing the exports of sugar ever since 1880. What has happened has been this, that practically the same lands have been producing sugar since that time, but until very recently they have been doing it with the old-fashioned caribou mill, which produced only muscavado sugar; and it was not until the boom times that came during the war, when everybody else being at war the Philippines had quite a boom, that the modern centrals begun to be put in, and that movement was not completed until 1924. Well, the old nluscavado mill recovered only 40 to 50 per cent of the saccharine matter of the came, while, of course, as you know the new central recovers 93 or 94 per cent; and that has made a great increase of late years in the amount produced from the same lands. But that movement has been discounted now; it is over, and we can not look for any greater increase in sugar without an increase in sugar-producing land. Then, you run up against this limitation I have spoken of earlier in my talk, the Filipino land laws, which have been introduced in the islands by our Congress in our early occupation, on the request of the Filipinos, preventing any large holdings of lands and preventing any such development in the Philippines as has taken place recently in Cuba. That is not likely to change; it is practically impossible to change it, unless we should force it upon the Filipinos. The sentiment against large holdings grew out of the historical controversy which the Filipino people had just prior to our occupation with the four great Friar orders which had come into great power under Spain and had monopolized the greater part of their agricultural lands. Great abuses grew up under that system. The Friars got possession of these lands and the Filipino population became tenants. There were various oppressions and abuses which resulted in the revolution against Spain of about 1895, just before our war with Spain. Well, that system produced such a feeling against large land holdings and against exploitation of any sort that when we went into possession there our Congress passed, with the full accord of the Filipinos, very strict land laws which forbid any one person or any one corporation to hold more than a comparatively small amount of land; and you have heard some of our investors here complain because they could not get land enough to make a big development, and you have heard appeals to Congress here to change those land laws. Before I went to the Philippines I had heard that and I had rather been impressed by it. But when I went there and realized the depth and character of the feeling of the Filipinos themselves against any change of the land laws, I realized the purpose that they had in view, namely, that it was better to have a nation composed of a lot of small landowners who owned their own land and tilled it than to have a few big corporations with the rest of the population as tenants, and I became converted to that idea, at least, so far as the Philippines are concerned, and would not at all advocate its change. Senator RANSDELL. It is a good idea anywhere, I think. But you have not told me about what is the total production of the Philippines. Secretary STIMSON. I was going to give you this table, and I will ask you to have it in if you are interested. Senator RANSDELL. I do not want the whole thing. Secretary STIMSON. The last year, 1927, I have got the total sugar exports from the Philippines was 544,579 tons. Senator RANSDELL. I have understood that General Wood claimed that the potential production of sugar in the Philippines is about 5,000,000 tons. That would be ten times that amount. Secretary STIMSON. General Wood is said once to have made a statement somewhat to that effect, which was at once taken up and has been quoted everywhere against him. The general is dead and we can not ask him again about it. I can only say that judging from my intercourse with him and my knowledge of his general attitude toward the islands in other respects, and what he has told me and talked with me about this whole situation, I think that if he ever made such a statement, it was not one which he had carefully considered. At any rate, I will say this, that it does not accord at all with my observation or my views. INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 691 Senator RANSDELL. Then you do not think the islands are capable of producing anything like that amount? Secretary STIMSON. Nothing like it. Senator RANSDELL. You can readily see, Mr. Secretary, if they can produce 5,0000,000 tons and will in the near future produce 5,000,000 tons, and since their labor is a great deal cheaper than the labor in this country, it would completely destroy the sugar industry of continental United States if they are to continue to bring their sugar in free. Secretary STIMSON. I can see that. Senator RANSDELL. Understanding all that, it makes us who are interested in the sugar production nervous about it. Secretary STIMSON. I think that nervousness has been very excusable, in the light of what has been said about it; and one thing I felt I could bring to the knowledge of the committee here has been the reasons showing that that fear was not at all justified. Senator RANSDELL. I am glad to hear you say it. Secretary STIMSON. I mean, since you have asked me, I want you to know I have made a study of it. Senator RANSDELL. I would like to have this in connection with my question: Our fears are partly grounded upon that statement of General Wood and also upon the fact that Cuba has increased enormously its production of sugar-it has gotten up now to about 6,000,000 tons. So, you see, we have the situation in Cuba helping along a statement attributed to General Wood. Secretary STIMSON. I think it will help to make clear the difference between the Filipinos and the Cuban sugar situation if I say that as Governor General I was the titular owner of six of the largest sugar mills in the islands, because I held the stock in those mills, and it was my business to watch their development. Those, with two or three exceptions, are the largest mills in the islands. These six government mills still owe the Philippine National Bank $15,000,000, resulting from losses of operation which have occurred back in past times, and the government has set aside $5,500,000 to meet the estimated ultimate loss. It is hoped they will regain the difference between those sums by careful operation and repay about two-thirds of the loan. But they have charged off already over a third of that amount to complete loss. Allow me to get this picture to you: This is another thing you have probably been frightened about. I have seen figures produced by some people before Congress, as follows: In 1903 there were only 34,000 tons of sugar exported from the islands, while in 1927 it had jumped up to 544,000. They have said if it goes on at that rate it will be 10,000,000 tons in a short time, or 5,000,000 tons or any amount. But they did not tell you that this amount as stated for 1903 was at the end of the insurrection, when all of the sugar fields were laid to waste, a wholly unfair statement. If you go back to 1895, just before the first insurrection against Spain broke out, those lands were producing 336,705 tons for export under the old muscavado mills. Now, this amount, 336,000, if it was translated into the terms of production which would have taken place under the present conditions with modern centrals instead of carabao mills, would have produced just about 560,000 tons, which is practically the same thing is being produced to-day. Senator RANSDELL. Are they now using for the cultivation of cane practically all the available land for that purpose in the Philippines, in your judgment? Secretary STIMSON. Practically all that has been used for sugar in these generations passed. There has been only one new experiment made, and that was on the island of Mindoro, where there was a number of American capitalists started out a new adventure on new land or wilderness land. I am telling this because that is the only way to answer your question. Senator RANSDELL. Yes. Secretary STIMSON. That San Jose experiment has been practically a failure. Senator RANSDELL. When did it start? Secretary STIMSON. In 1910. Senator RANSDELL. Oh, then, it has been going on long enough to have had a pretty fair test? Secretary STIMSON. A fair test; and I know about its failure because I had to help rescue some of the banks that had invested heavily in it last year, and it produces now only about 6,000 tons of sugar and has been substantially a failure. That is almost the only one. Of course, there may be sporadic other small ones that have been experimenting on new lands. There are other lands in the Philippines which are no doubt capable of producing sugar, but the Filipinos have not 692 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS tried to use them in the past; and this is the only occasion where Americans went in and tried to use new land and it has been a failure. Senator RANSDELL. And the people of other nations have not tried that? Secretary STIMSON. NO. Senator RANSDELL. IS it the general impression there that they are using for sugar production practically all the land that is profitable? Secretary STIMSON. I will not say that, because I do not think anyone is in a position to say. I do not want to say improper things, and your question is pretty hard to answer. The islands have a great amount of land in them of various kinds, but historically the sugar-raising parts of the islands are the island of Negros, the great central plain in Luzon, and a certain amount in Cebu. Those lands have been used ever since Spanish times, and those are the lands that historically have produced all this sugar, except this one experiment in Mindoro. I can not say what they may do absolutely, but I can tell you that for 50 years they have not done so; and I think that practically answers your question. Senator FLETCHER. Any further development you think probably would be in small areas? Secretary STIMSON. It has got to be in small areas under the land laws; comparatively very small areas. Senator RANSDELL. It is altogether a different situation than in Cuba? Secretary STIMSON. An entirely different situation than in Cuba. I will undertake to give you this picture: In Cuba since 1920 the number of independent farms in the island have gone down, I am informed, from over 60,000 to about 30,000. Senator RANSDELL. Since 1920? Secretary STIMSON. Yes; indicating the purchase of large holdings. That would not be possible in the Philippines. Senator RANSDELL. And there are a great many large holdings in sugar land in Cuba? Secretary STIMSON. Yes. Senator FLETCHER. The Philippines export exclusively to the United States; they do not send any sugar anywhere else? Secretary STIMSON. I will not say that, but it is mainly to the United States; and as far as sugar is concerned it is practically all. But the Philippines is not a 1-crop country. I think you ought to bear that in mind. Senator FLETCHER. I had reference to sugar. Secretary STIMSON. I mean there is an idea that the Philippines is a 1-crop country, such as Cuba is said to have become. But sugar is the fifth crop in area of land used for sugar-cane production in the Philippines. Senator RANSDELL. People who raise cotton know they are not a 1-crop country, because they are becoming a very material factor in competition with cottonseed-oil production in this country. Secretary STIMSON. These are a few figures I would like to read into the record in answer to that: The acreage of the five principal crops, showing the land occupied by them in the Philippines: Rice, 1,807,060 hectares-a hectar is about two and a quarter acres of land, or nearly two and a half acres; corn, 561,000; coconuts, 500,000; hemp, 480,000; and sugar, 237,000. Senator RANSDELL. The idea has been put forth, Mr. Secretary, that almost unlimited possibility exists in the Philippines for the production of coconuts and copra. Secretary STIMSON. Well, of course, the coconut tree can be planted in a great many more places than sugar-cane, and the coconut is the poor man's crop. It is not a crop for exploitation. Probably more Filipinos live on a small production of coconuts than anything else except rice. Coconuts, hemp, rice, and corn are their main living crops. Senator FLETCHER. Do they not grow bananas? Secretary STIMSON. Everybody grows a few bananas, but not for sale. They have made some shipments to China. Of course, they are rather far away from here. Senator RANSDELL. IS there this very great production of coconut oil that we hear so much about? Secretary STIMSON. You have got to face the fact that the coconut tree is one of the easiest trees to grow all through the Tropics anywhere, and is grown everywhere. But it has not been in the Philippines a subject of exploitation by large companies at all. The growth of coconuts is a matter, as I say, of a few trees on a few acres by a great many poor men; and those are gathered up with a good deal of loss and expense by various collection agencies, middlemen who do INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 693 not do it in a very profitable or economic way; and there is an ecomomic check, I think, on the chance of that being any great development. Senator FLETCHER. There are not Dutch ships-that is, ships of Hollandengaged in trade between the Philippines and the United States, are there? Secretary STIMSON. There may be a very few, but I do not think many. Of course, the principal ones are the American ships, then British ships, and the Japanese ships. Senator FLETCHER. You spoke about barring of American ships from Sumatra and Java automatically if our coastwise laws were extended to the Philippines. Secretary STIMSON. I am looking at it, Senator Fletcher, more in terms of the future than anything else. You have got to bear this in mind, that nobody has yet found it profitable, Americans or anybody else, to run direct lines from the Philippines to the United States. You have got to trade with a lot of other ports. Even the great liners call first at Japan, Shanghai, Hong Kong, then Manila and the other oriental ports. Then there is the Dollar Line that goes around the world, going to the Malay Peninsula and on to India, and on around that way, while Java and Sumatra lie right down near that line, and as it develops I can not help feeling that trade is now in its infancy. I went out there first in 1926, and I have seen developments since that time. Regarding that trade as only in its infancy, there will be room for the freest kind of trade between these different groups, and I believe that no trade will be at its best if we start in to make a series of water-tight compartments between these different ports. Senator FLETCHER. I gathered, Mr. Secretary, from your statement that your view is that there is no need for protecting the beet sugar or cane-sugar industry in the United States against competition with the Philippines in the way of duties or increased freight rates. Secretary STIMSON. So far as that is concerned, Senator, I think you can take it mathematically. If I remember the figures, we are consuming now about 5,000,000 tons of sugar in this country. Three-fifths of that, about 3,000,000 tons, as I remember the figures roughly, come from Cuba and 1,000,000, or one-fifth, comes from continental United States, that is, beet sugar and Louisiana sugar; and the remaining one-fifth from the insular possessions, including Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. Now, manifestly, so long long as any substantial amount of sugar paying duty comes into the United States, particularly such a large amount as three-fifths of the sugar consumption, that will fix the price of all the rest of the sugar. The price of sugar to-day in the United States, in other words, is necessarily fixed by the cost of production of sugar in Cuba, plus the duty on it. Now, the one-fifth that comes in from the outer possessions-Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines-can not affect that price in the United States at all, until it disposes of all of Cuban sugar-which, I think, will be recognized as absurdly impossible. Senator RANSDELL. We have understood, Mr. Secretary, that the sugar industry has been pretty well developed to its limit in Porto Rico and Hawaii. But, as I stated before, there is a great deal of nervousness as to the potential production in the future in the Philippines. If we could be assured that you are correct in your idea of it, I think that nervousness would be dissipated. Secretary STIMSON. I only wish I was as sure of some other things in the world as I am confident about that. Senator RANSDELL. You can readily see that if the Philippines are going to produce 500,000 tons, Cuba, with the differential against it, could not compete. Secretary STIMSON. Not only are these legislative restrictions and public sentiment that have underlain the land laws against it, but a great many other things are against it. It can not be developed under those laws by the system of exploitation from above; it has got to be developed, if at all, solely by cooperation of a lot of small landowners being willing to develop new and around a new central. Now, that is very slow. Senator RANSDELL. I am very glad to have your explanation. Secretary STIMSON. And it is very slow-particularly a tropical people like the Filipinos, as I found when I was working for the development of Luzon. Their development is slow and conservative. They have not very much initiative, in our sense. They are not bounding about, trying new things. They are very subject to their old views and every old conservatism; and the idea of the average Filipino is to have a small tract of land, raise his own needs on it, and to live a comparatively simple life there. Further than that their leaders and our people have all been emphasizing on them the importance of diversification of crops. You have certainly given 694 INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS them a lesson this year on the danger of putting all their eggs into one sugar basket. Senator RANSDELL. Have you discussed the question of a Canadian preferential tariff? Secretary STIMSON. I have not at all. I did not even know about it until I read the minutes of your hearings. Senator RANSDELL. Let me submit a question to you and let you look into it if you are not prepared to answer it offhand. I understand that the United States permits American imports to be brought to the Canadian ports without being subjected to higher customs charges than are imposed on similar exports when made direct to ports of the United States; on the other hand, the Canadian Government imposes a higher tariff on certain imports when brought into that country via American ports. Now, if Canada withholds reciprocal treatment in favor of American products because any question arises, ought we not to conform to that Canadian practice? In a concrete case, as stated by one of the witnesses the other day, that bananas imported into this country, say, through the port of Boston, have to pay a duty of 50 cents a bunch when they are carried into Canada, but if those same bananas were carried into the port of Montreal, let us say, they could be brought into the United States without any duty of any kind, and I just wanted to know if we could not do something to correct what seems to be the failure of reciprocity, to put it in the mildest way, on the part of Canada against this country. Secretary STIMSON. I had not had that brought to my attention until I read it in the statement of Mr. Nicolson in the minutes this morning when I was reading that before I came here. Senator RANSDELL. It does seem to me, Mr. Secretary, it is something which should be looked into by your great department. Secretary STIMSON. I am very glad to have it brought to my attention, and I will have it looked into. Senator RANSDELL. I know nothing about it, except what was stated here the other day. Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Nicolson is a representative of the Shipping Board. Secretary STIMSON. Yes. I read his very interesting statement, and I noticed that statement. But, as I said, I have not had it brought to my attention before, and I can not answer offhand. Senator JOHNSON. It came up in connection with the questions Mr. Nicolson was asked. I do not know that he volunteered it, but it was directly in line with the questions we were asking him, and he brought it out, I thought, in a most interesting manner. Are there any other questions? [After a pause.] May I thank the Secretary on behalf of the committee for his most valuable statement to-day? It hasbeen very interesting to me, and I am sure to all the members of the committee. Secretary STIMSON. Mr. Chairman, I am very much obliged to you for givingme this opportunity to come. I have, as you have noticed from my remarks, grown very found of the Filipino people, arising from my association with them there; and anything I can do to bring out that situation I am very glad to do. The CHAIRMAN. I presume it will not be necessary to call another meeting. The committee will stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12.30 p. m., the committee adjourned.) X VW UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN i IIIJlli[l! Hff I lllll Ili 3 9015 02941 2726 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GRADUATE LIBRARY - — lr~lro I I jr ~AY45~ Li. N. I I i I I ii -1 I I I I I I.1 41 i I I I i II