5,000 rifles having been gathered from them, as the Christian Filipinos had previously been disarmed. No apologies were made for this action of the Government and certainly no promises were proffered. General Pershing, Governor General Forbes, and former Governor Frank W. Carpenter, of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, are witnesses to this fact, and the denials of such promises appear in the official records of the Government. The United States did not assume any obligation toward the Mohammedan Filipinos differing from that which it assumed as regards the Christian Filipinos. As to the alleged traditional animosity between the Mohammedan and the Christian Filipinos, it is very unfortunate that Secretary Hurley should share in the belief of its existence. The truth is different. If religion is the barrier to complete understanding between the two elements, it is easy to see that the Mohammedan Filipinos would be as much distrustful of American Christians than they are of Filipino Christians. The real fact is that no such animosity exists, and that Mohammedan and Christian Filipinos, belonging as they do to the same race and conscious as they are of a common destiny, to-day feel that they are part of the same nation which it is their privilege and duty both to support and to govern. 7. Secretary Hurley, who persistently refused to fix a date for independence on the ground that he is not a prophet, is not, however, disinclined to prophesy disaster, chaos, anarchy, and even revolution in the Philippines if independence were granted. He cites no facts and gives no reasons in the course of his testimony which would justify such gloomy forebodings. We claim to know our people better and to be, at least, as familiar as Secretary Hurley with the economic and social conditions obtaining in our country. We are not burdened with such pessimism. We fear no revolution. The history of our people is sufficient to allay such fear. The Filipinos are law-abiding and have learned to accept the decision of the majority. No spirit of sectionalism or class divides them. Through democratic practices for almost a generation now they have learned to settle their national problems at the polls. Anarchy and revolution are most improbable. And why should there be such upheavals? Let us accept the worst that may happen, because of sudden economic changes. Let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the foreign trade of the islands would be wiped out and that the exportable products can not find a profitable market either in the United States or elsewhere. Undoubtedly, such a condition would result in. serious difficulties and great hardships for the Filipino people. But unemployment, hunger, and starvation will not follow in their wake. The Philippines is an agricultural country. Its people possess the natural resiliency of a tropical people to changing economic conditions. A very large percentage of the Filipino people are landowners and own their homes. They also have opportunities of acquiring lands which they may cultivate and develop to satisfy their wants. But if depressed conditions must come and the Filipinos must pay the price which other nations have paid before they were permitted to enjoy fully the blessings of national independence, the Filipino people should not be denied the opportunity to pay that price. SUGGESTIONS OF SECRETARY HURLEY Secretary Hurley proposes that the Filipino people be not now informed as to their political future, and, thus, would continue the present uncertainty which not only hampers their progress but shakes their spirit and makes them despair of their liberty. He does not propose to settle the question of independence. He merely hints that some time, ultimately, it may be granted. Immediately, however, he proposes that congressional action be taken limiting the free entry of Philippine products into the United States, and also Philippine immigration into continental United States. This is the first time since the American occupation of the islands that such a proposal has come from an authoritative official branch of the American Government. It is not only contrary to the avowed American policy of altrusim in the Philippines but is diametrically opposed to the position heretofore taken on this question by the War Department, by the Governors General of the Philippines, and by every American administration. It will deprice the Filipinos of priceless privileges and rights which they now enjoy under the American flag, the withdrawal of which could not but be interpreted by them as both unjust and discriminatory. But Secretary Hurley is not satisfied with these limitations on Philippine freedom and the curtailment of their rights and trade. He proposes to maintain in the Philippines an unrestricted market for American products and manufactures. He goes further. He would compel the Philippines to revise their tariff laws so as to impose higher duties on articles coming from foreign countries and thus force increased consumption of American products by the Filipino people. Such a scheme, if carried out, would embark the United States on a policy of exploitation of the Philippines. The adoption of these steps without at the same time fixing a definite date for the independence of the Philippines is a reversal of America's traditional policy and the inauguration of a new policy, that of permanent retention and subjugation of the Filipino people. It is true that Secretary Hurley, in answer to certain criticisms of his proposed policy, recognized that such steps as he proposed could justly be considered politically unmoral if they were not adopted as steps preparatory to independence. On the other hand, unless a definite date were fixed, the approval of the program outlined by Secretary Hurley would lead the Philippines away from, not nearer to, their coveted liberty, while at the same time straight jacketing their economic development and trade for an indefinite period. Certainly the mere expectation of ultimate independence as described by Secretary Hurley is too vague and indefinite to offer a justification for such drastic impositions upon the Filipino people. Secretary Hurley couples his trade proposals with the hint of an enlargement of Filipino participation in their governmental affairs. This can not satisfy the Filipinos. It will not justify the injurious restrictions which it is sought to impose on their trade and the right of Filipino citizens freely to enter the United States. But even this offer of increased participation in government administration is difficult to understand and will be misconstrued. For the offer is limited by Secretary Hurley as follows: "Provided it involves no surrender of any authority now possessed by the American Government." Government authority is a definable and fixed measure of political power. It is impossible to increase the participation of one element without reducing the authority of the other. It is difficult to discern how Philippine participation can be increased without reducing that which the American Government now exercises. Reference to this proposal is made here not that it is of any importance in the discussion of this question of independence, but merely because it offers one additional reason to support the view that the proposal of Secretary Hurley is impracticable and unjust, is meaningless in its political phase, and highly injurious to Philippine interests in its economic aspects. It can not be acceptable to the people of the Philippine Islands. CONCLUSION The analysis of the testimony of Secretary Hurley shows that both the plan and the provisions of the Hawes-Cutting bill in the Senate and the Hare bill in the House of Representatives provide a sound and statesmanlike solution of the question of Philippine independence. These bills courageously and without any attempt at evasion or postponement of fundamental issues solve the Philippine problem in conformity with American policy, in accord with Filipino aspirations, and with proper safeguards for their political, social, and economic interests. A fair and impartial consideration of the facts bearing on the Philippine question, even only of those which are not disputed by Secretary Hurley, will justify the enactment of a measure granting the Philippines its independence as was promised in the Jones Act. The Filipino people are confident that such action will be taken. Respectfully submitted. SERGIO OSMEÑA, Acting President Philippine Senate. Senate Minority Leader. Resident Commissioner from the Philippines. CAMILO OSIAS, Resident Commissioner from the Philippines. Speaker, Philippines House of Representatives. PEDRO SABIDO, House Majority Leader. EMILIANO T. TIRONA, House Minority Leader. (Whereupon, at 4.45 o'clock, p. m., the committee adjourned until Saturday, February 13, 1932, at 10 o'clock, a. m.) INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1932 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. HURLEY, SECRETARY OF WAR-Resumed Secretary HURLEY. Mr. Chairman, since I last appeared I have been advised that the suggestion I made for reciprocal arrangements on trade would be immoral while the sovereignty of the United States continues over the Philippine Islands. Of course that must necessarily be admitted by all if the reciprocal arrangements are not made as a step toward the ultimate independence of the Philippine Islands. What is said about a reciprocal tariff being immoral would apply also to any limitations on the exports of sugar into the United States from the Islands unless that limitation is also made as one of the steps toward ultimate independence. So that my criticism of the HawesCutting bill on that ground did not intend to place a tariff or a limitation during the sovereignty of the United States except as a step toward the ultimate independence. It is a preparation for independence. Otherwise I agree that it would be improper for us to continue the sovereignty and deprive the people of the Philippine Islands of the rights which that sovereignty implies. Two further questions arose the other day that were not fully covered. The first question in substance was: Would the harmful economic effect which, it has been pointed out, would, in my opinion, follow the enactment of the Hawes-Cutting bill, disappear if the 5-year period of restricted entry of Philippine sugar and coconut oil on a duty-free basis were extended-say to 10 years? Under present conditions as to the duty-free entry of copra, any restriction on the duty-free entry of Philippine coconut oil, as a measure of protection to American farm or dairy interests, would be an absurdity, because copra comes in free from all the rest of the world. I shall therefore limit my present comment to sugar, which is the vital export crop in the Philippine economic situation. In so far as can be foreseen, extending the 5-year period of dutyfree entry of sugar into the United States on the proposed basis of limitation of sugar shipments would not remove the objections to the provision-that is, in so far as concerns the interests of the Filipino and American people. It would, of course, increase the period of expected rapid amortization of present investments in Philippine sugar properties. In other words, it would help the investors, but it would not furnish any basis of permanent solution for the economic welfare of the Philippine Islands. Investors in Philippine sugar-in which are included American investors, whose enterprise and capital have aided in developing the Philippine Islands deserve every consideration from both the United States and the Philippine government, but they are not entitled to have the whole matter of a sound economic and political program subordinated to their special needs. Their property and rights should be protected, but they should be protected on a basis that will not end in disaster to the Filipino people and discredit to the United. States. In so far as can now be foreseen, whenever, within any reasonable period, the Philippine Islands pass at one sudden step, from duty-free entry of their sugar into the United States in any such quantities as now so enter, to a status where that sugar must pay full United States customs duties, there will be a violent and disastrous slump in the economic life of the Philippine Islands. That, of course, is what I have attempted to point out would be the result of the Hawes-Cutting bill, whether immediately or in the future, according to the number of years designated in the bill. The proposal under the Hawes-Cutting bill would allow more sugar to enter in the near future than enters now. It presages a crash within about five years after the proposed new Philippine government, still under our sovereignty, is set up.. Postponing the crash another five years is not going to save the situation. It would be like permitting a man who was sentenced to be pitched off a precipice tomorrow to delay the event until the day after. The proposal in the Hawes-Cutting bill is merely an attempt at a temporary palliative-it does not go to the root of the trouble for it involves no progress in adjustment of the present unbalanced state of Philippine-American trade relations. The second question which was raised, and I think not fully answered in my last appearance was in substance: Considering two of the possible methods of regulating Philippine sugar shipments, the one just discussed and the one that would involve placing some form of impost on Philippine sugar such as a United States customs duty in amount that the industry can standwhich is preferable? The answer is that limitation effected by some type of impost is preferable and a small United States tariff on sugar would tend to accomplish the purpose in view. It is not the only method that would have that effect. This method, properly applied, is constructive and should, in the end, help, not hurt, the Philippine sugar industry itself while tending to ward off a crash in the event of independence. Both questions presented above will be treated in more detail in my analysis of the pending bills. Now, Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of saving some time I have here a short analysis of the Hawes-Cutting bill which tells, I believe, what the bill provides, and if it is satisfactory to Senator Hawes I will just put that part of it in the record, because the bill speaks for itself, whether I have made a correct analysis of it or not, but I think for anyone following the argument it will be necessary for that analysis to precede my criticism of the bill, if that is satisfactory to the Senator Senator HAWES. Very well. Secretary HURLEY. I will insert that up to page 6. |