Secretary HURLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Where?

Secretary HURLEY. It has hope in it in that it has continuously enlarged the economic horizon, not only of the people, but the whole surroundings of the government. In other words, my idea is, Senator, not to destroy anything but to build up everything. And I do believe that the economic situation of the Philippines now is not comparable in any way to what the situation was when we undertook the government. It is so much superior, and the possibilities of getting out of it and making them self-sufficient are so much greater, that there is not any point of comparison.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, but is not that complete and total advantage contingent upon free American markets?

Secretary HURLEY. It is; free American markets or a reciprocal American market.

Senator VANDENBERG. If that is the fact, then in respect to complete independence the progress that has been made has no bearing whatever upon the future, because this independence would involve a severance of all of the fundamental relations upon which this beautiful progress has been made.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes; that is true. And that is why I have suggested economic changes, to take place now with the consent of Congress, that would build further toward the objective that you ask for. And now, Senator, please do not get me on the opposite side of your bill, because there are so many elements in your bill with which I am in complete agreement. I do not want to become antagonistic. I am merely pointing out what I consider the one weakness of the economic program that you have outlined; namely, that it involves a possibility of collapse, of internal strife, which it is my duty to prevent if it is possible to do so.

Senator VANDENBERG. I think I would have to concede that element, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes.

Senator VANDENBERG. But will that element not always be present if we are ever going to undertake to liquidate the promise in the preamble of the Jones Act?

Secretary HURLEY. No, sir. If I agreed to that, Senator, I would agree to your bill in toto immediately. I believe we can work it out without permitting any destruction of the Filipino people or of their objectives.

Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Secretary, I understand your position is that you are not opposed to Filipino independence, but you would like an economic program constructed as a condition precedent to independence. How do you think we can do that?

Secretary HURLEY. I discussed that, I think, Senator, before you came in, but I would be glad to tell you.

Senator TYDINGS. I can read it in the hearings.

Secretary HURLEY. I would be glad to tell you again.

Senator TYDINGS. The thought in my mind was this, that each one of these plans makes an attempt to force the Filipino people to establish gradually an economic structure on which they can run their government after they have gotten their independence. Now do you not think that they never will tackle that problem until they are forced to tackle it by the imminence of independence? That you can

not get a people to consider a problem that is a theory? It must be a condition before they really take hold of it. Now what I do not understand is how we are going to get the Filipino people to think about this, to work with it, until you give them definitely the vision of independence so that they may approach that and encompass it? Secretary HURLEY. Well, of course, Senator, I agree fully with your thesis. If independence is not imminent now I think that Senator Hawes and my friend Senator Cutting are mistaken. I think it is imminent. I think there is every reason in the world why every Filipino in this room, every Filipino who is interested in the future of his nation, should now know that the time has come for him to direct his mind to economics rather than politics, because this nation could not exist after the curtailing of the free American markets provided in the Hawes-Cutting bill.

Let me tell you what it would do. When independence would come under that bill it would reduce the income of the Phillipine government-the revenues-by 40 per cent. Next it would cause the withdrawal of American troops, which would immediately reduce the circulation of currency in the islands by about $12,000,000 a year. The bill adds not one penny of new revenue. The Philippine government has got bonds out now that it had to issue to continue the government and extend its activities. There is no provision in the bill for the payment of that bonded indebtedness.

Senator TYDINGS. If I may interrupt you

Secretary HURLEY. No, let me finish this, because it is very important that you know what this bill is to do.

Senator TYDINGS. I already know that.

Secretary HURLEY. There seem to be others present who do not know. Since you have asked the question, I should like to answer fully.

Senator TYDINGS. I do not think I made my question clear to you. What I was attempting to get before the committee was this thought. Will not the present situation continue the very things that you picture, multiplied, until the people themselves have put into their hands this problem to solve with the idea that they must solve it at a certain time to be fixed definitely in the future? That if we continue to exercise our sovereignty over the Philippines with the Filipino people being in control of their local affairs there is no problem for them to solve? We never wrote our own Constitution until after we got independence. It strikes me that we are all in agreement about independence. But what I am figuring on is how can you set up the economic structure until the people realize it as a condition rather than a theory?

Secretary HURLEY. Of course I was discussing the economic effects of this bill I nave stated a manner of meeting the economic conditions and helping the Filpinos to build out of the situation in which they are. The present bill would destroy the present economic situation, and there isn't any substitute in the bill for that situation when it is finally destroyed.

Senator TYDINGS. Of course the present economic situation will have to be destroyed when the Filipino people get independence. It is an operation that must be brought about before they get independWe have got to destroy their reciprocal relations with the

ence.

United States. Now it strikes me that the logical way to get at that would be to say: "These things are going to be destroyed at such and such a date, and it is your problem to begin now to meet that destruction by setting up a new structure when that event occurs."

Secretary HURLEY. Well, of course, where that is in conflict with my idea, Senator, is that, in place of setting the date, you should set the objective and say to the Filipinos, "You must accomplish this as a condition precedent to independence."

I agree with you that possibly you may have to show them that they are likely to get this destructive form of independence in order to direct the minds of the people to the facts. I had hoped, however, that their minds could be directed to the facts and that the objective could be set, not in the form of a time limit, but as a condition for independence.

I have wandered far, and it is getting late. I have touched on the fact that nine provinces of the Islands, comprising 40 per cent of the territory, are still represented by appointed legislators and a number of them governed by appointed governors. This is done because those elements have not reached that degree of familiarity with selfgovernment whereby they can protect their rights through the methods prescribed.

The United States is under obligations to those people. They surrendered to the United States, not to any other element of the Philippines. To walk out and leave this 40 per cent of the Islands, where you now have appointed representatives, without protecting their rights, would be something that would, in my opinion, show unfriendliness. Someone has objected to the word "cowardly," but that is what it would be if we abandon the obligations that we have to those people.

The next thing is that if the Filipinos were free to-morrow we would have to discharge from the United States Army about 7,000 Philippino scouts. The depleted condition of the Treasury would not permit the Government of the Philippine Islands to take these men into the service of the Islands, and that might be an element of destruction in itself.

With an already depleted Treasury that could not even continue its school system on the present scale, there would arise the questions of national defense and of the representation of the nation abroad. I do not believe that national defense, upon any basis that could defend the islands by force, could be provided by the Philippines. I believe that the Islands are now economically incapable of evolving such a system. Present indications suggest that the guaranteeing of territorial rights and the rights of the Government by treaties alone are not as effectual as we thought to be possibly the case six months ago.

Senator PITTMAN. Or in 1922.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes; I am sorry to take the unpopular side of this question, because my own sentiments would be "All right, let us go ahead; let us do this thing." But I feel that I can not, without stating what I believe to be the facts, see this committee or Congress take action which will, in my opinion, bring chaos and anarchy to the Philippines and, in addition to that, bring about these conditions while the islands are under the American flag.

If you are going to do what Senator King has suggested; if you are going to give the Philippine Islands complete and premature independence; if we are going to abandon every obligation that we have honorably undertaken to the Filipino people, and fail to consider the welfare of other nations; if we are going to disregard all of those obligations then follow Senator King's idea and give the Filipinos the immediate and complete and absolute independence for which they have asked. But I tell you, gentlemen, it is not the reasonable thing to do, and it is not in keeping with the benign policy that has been pursued by our Government for over 30 years.

I regret very much that it appears to be about time to adjourn. I will have to ask the chairman to permit me to extend in the record, if he will, the detailed discussion of the Hawes-Cutting bill and the Vandenberg bill, unless the committee wishes to ask me some more questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, it is our plan to go on this afternoon at 2 o'clock. Would it be possible for you to continue at that time?

Secretary HURLEY. Senator, I have a hearing that I have to attend on the Mississippi flood plans. I put it off until 2.30 this afternoon so that I could be here this morning. I had no idea then that the committee might intend to go on, but I would be glad to come back any other time. I really think that, having had all of our preliminary skirmishes on general principles, we should come to a discussion of the merits of the measures before you.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee is going to have another meeting on Saturday morning. We intended to have an executive session Saturday morning. If you can not come this afternoon, if it is the pleasure of the committee we will be glad to hear you on Saturday morning at the same time, at 10 o'clock. Would that be convenient for you?

Secretary HURLEY. Saturday morning at 10, yes; I will be here at that time. I should like the committee to know, Senator, that it makes no difference to me whether it be an executive or open session. If the committee wants to discuss the questions informally, in executive session, I should be delighted to do so. I will proceed any way that the committee may desire.

The CHAIRMAN. That decision will be reached by the committee. You are ready to stop at this time?

Secretary HURLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the hearing will be adjourned until 2 o'clock, when we will hear the other witnesses who have been suggested by various Senators, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Tavenner, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Craig. We will meet at 2 o'clock in this room.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m. the same day, Thursday, February 11, 1932.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee reconvened at the expiration of the recess, at 2 o'clock p. m.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The first witness is the Hon. Clyde H. Tavenner.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLYDE H. TAVENNER, REPRESENTING PHILIPPINE CIVIC UNION

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the reporter, please. Mr. TAVENNER. Clyde H. Tavenner. I am the publisher of the Philippine Republic, a monthly magazine.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask Senator Metcalf to preside.

Senator METCALF. You may proceed.

Mr. TAVENNER. I would like to say, before I start to discuss the bill, how I became interested in this Philippine question.

In the year 1909, I happened to be a newspaper correspondent here in Washington, and I met Mr. Quezon, the then Commissioner in Congress, and became interested in the Philippine question. I have been identified with the publicity end of the campaign in the United States for Philippine independence for some 23 years, and probably to a greater extent than any other American. In that time I have had occasion to come into direct, intimate contact with the Filipino leaders. I have been identified with every one of the missions that has been here, from the first one up to but not including this one. I have been in dozens of conferences with them when there was no other American present.

Therefore, I have been in an exceptional position to come to some conclusion about their ability as statesmen.

Senator METCALF. You have been there, and visited them?

Mr. TAVENNER. Yes. I have been through the Philippines, from Bontoc in the North, to Jolo in the South, and I have been even back in the center of that wonderful island of Mindanao, a section which was still marked on the map "unexplored" at the time of my visit. This Mindanao country is a very wonderful country.

Senator METCALF. Are you in the employ of this Civic Union? Mr. TAVENNER. No, sir. I was simply appointed by them as one of their delegates here. They appointed me voluntarily. It is simply an honorary position. I receive no pay for it whatsoever. They simply asked me to appear here with Charles Edward Russell, who is the author of two books on the Philippines, "The Hero of the Filipinos" and "The Outlook for the Philippines." So, they sent us these credentials and asked us to appear for them, and we were very glad to do so, in behalf of Philippine independence.

I have been a newspaper man all my life, starting in 1900, and in that time I have come in contact with members of American city councils, judges, and for many years with Members of Congress here in Washington. I was a member of the 62nd and 63rd Congresses, from Rock Island, Illinois, so I have had an exceptional opportunity to compare Filipinos with American statesmen. As I say, after having known them intimately all this time, I am absolutely convinced of their ability to govern wisely and well; they are able and efficient, painstaking, and even brilliant men. They will compare, class for class, with American public officials in every way, shape, manner and form.

As to the Filipino people, my impression, after having known them all these years, is that the American people never fully appreciated their virtues, their capabilities, or their culture. Class for class, they will compare with any other people anywhere. With Americans? Yes, sir. Different in the tint of their skin, yes, but as human beings, in every quality that God notes or cares about, they are the same.