prive 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." This statement of the mission is most interesting in view of the following facts.

At a public hearing held January 26, 1932, on pending Philippine legislation before the House Committee on Insular Affairs, the representatives of the Philippine mission, who had been appearing before that committee, were requested to submit to the committee any proposed amendments to the bill then specially under consideration. (H. R. 7233, the earlier form of what is generally known as the Hare bill.) In the related discussion which took place at the hearing on January 26 in connection with the submission of the proposed amendments, one of the members of the committee stated: "Some of us have well defined ideas as to the question of immigration, this exclusion of immigration or regulation of it. May I ask that they (referring to the Philippine representatives) include in their statement detailed views as to that?" One of the Philippine representatives (Speaker Roxas) then stated: "That is not our preference; but we will indicate what we are willing to do. We are willing to accept the immediate restrictions (italics not in original) and to accept a maximum quota. Then after independence, if it is the desire of Congress to impose the full force and effect of immigration laws of the United States, it is the privilege of Congress to do that."

At the next hearing before the same committee on January 29, 1932, the chairman of that committee announced that he had received a letter from the chairman of the Philippine mission, Acting Senate President Osmeña, “transmitting the amendments proposed" and that he would like to insert them in the record of the hearings at that point. A member of the committee then requested that a brief resumé of the proposed amendments be made by Speaker Roxas, who had made the principal detailed presentation of the views of the mission regarding pending legislation.

Among the amendments proposed at that time by the Philippine mission was a new section 6 to be inserted in the first form of the Hare bill (H. R. 7233). That amendment provided, in substance, that from the date of the inauguration of a proposed new form of government in the Philippine Islands, under American sovereignty, “and thereafter until the final withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippine Islands, the same rates of duty which are required by the laws of the United States to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries shall be levied, collected, and paid on refined sugar in excess of 30,000 tons annually, and on other sugars in excess of 20 per centum of the total sugars imported into the United States, from Hawaii, Porto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippine Islands, and from foreign countries, during the previous calendar year." The same amendment submitted by the Philippine representatives proposed quantitative limitations on duty-free shipments of Philippine coconut oil and cordage entering the United States from the Philippine Islands during the period from the inauguration of the new form of Philippine government under American sovereignty until the termination of that sovereignty, and provided that coconut oil and cordageentering the United States from the Philippine Islands in excess of the quantitative limitations so fixed should, while the islands still remained under American sovereignty, pay the full United States customs duties.

Another amendment proposed by the Philippine mission at the same session of the committee involved the incorporation in the Hare bill of a new section 8. That amendment provided that, from and after the date of the inauguration of the new Philippine government proposed to be established under American sovereignty," the immigration laws of the United States shall extend and apply to immigrants from the Philippine Islands: Provided, however, That during the existence of said government and until the withdrawal of American sovereignty as herein provided, citizens of the Philippine Islands seeking admission into the United States shall be considered as nonquota immigrants, and the provisions of the immigration laws, regulations, and orders applicable to nonquota immigrants shall apply to them: Provided, further, That the number of said immigrants of the Philippine Islands shall not exceed one hundred during any calendar year." (Italics not in original.) The provision here quoted was followed by further matter which, in substance, provided that the section in question should not apply to the Territory of Hawaii, nor to a person possessing the status or occupation of any one of certain groups or classes listed in the amendment.

The amendments thus submitted by the Philippine mission were submitted prior to my appearance before either the House or Senate committees in connection with the Philippine legislation now pending before Congress, and before I had made any recent public statement whatever upon that subject.

It will be seen from the above that the Philippine mission proposes that there should be put into effect, while American soverignty in the Philippine Islands still continues, quantitative limitations on the duty-free entry into the United States of Philippine sugar products, coconut oil and cordage; and that all amounts of those products entering the United States during that period, in excess of the stated limitations, should pay full United States tariff duties. I have not gone as far as the proposal made by the Philippine mission. The only Philippine product on which I have definitely suggested limitation in some form (preferably not quantitative limitation) is sugar; whereas the mission proposes specific quantitative limitations on sugar, coconut oil, and cordage. I have not proposed the early subjection of even Philippine sugar to full United States tariff duties while the Philippine Islands remain under United States sovereignty; whereas the Philippine mission would subject all such shipments in excess of the proposed limit to such full duties even during a period under United States sovereignty. I have, however, sought to agree, to some extent, with the principle of limitation proposed by the mission. In doing so I regard limitation, however effected, primarily as a logical step in preparation for independence and as an appropriate step looking toward readjustment of trade relations on a basis of mutually advantageous trade reciprocity thus tending to stable future trade relations, satisfactory both to the Philippine Islands and to the United States.

It will also be seen that the Philippine mission proposes that the immigration laws of the United States should be extended and applied to immigrants from the Philippine Islands while those islands still continue under United States sovereignty, subject to the proviso mentioned above. Apparently, therefore, the Philippine mission, which takes exception to any proposal on my part “That congressional action be taken limiting the free entry of Philippine products into the United States, and also Philippine immigration into continental United States," made proposals, identical in principle, before the House Committee on Insular Affairs prior to the submission of any such proposals by myself. This fact lends special interest to the statement of the mission quoted above, that the limitations on Philippine products and Filipino immigration, the proposal of which it implies originated with me, will "deprive 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."

If limitations on the free entry of Philippine products into the United States and on Philippine immigration into the continental United States, at my suggestion, would "deprive the Filipinos of priceless privileges and rights which they now enjoy under the American flag, **" it is rather difficult to see upon just what basis the mission previously recommended the incorporation in the Hare bill of amendments reflecting similar limitations.

After its comment reference tariff and immigration limitations, the mission further states, referring to myself: "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." My testimony can be searched in vain for any justification of the statement contained in the first of the two sentences quoted above. I have, however, indicated that, if the trade relations between the Philippine Islands and the United States are to be adjusted to a basis that may be expected to continue, there must be established some reasonable reciprocity as regards the benefits from those relations received by the United States and the Philippine Islands, respectively. I have further pointed out. in substance, that an appropriate step toward the establishment of mutually satisfactory trade relations would be the initiation of action by the Philippine legislature which would tend to give to American products entering the Philippine Islands a reasonable measure of the protection that is now afforded to Philippine products entering the United States. That suggestion is by no means based simply on the principle of giving additional benefits to American trade. While the Philippine Islands constitute an important present, and more important potential, market for American prod

ucts, the continued enjoyment of American markets is of supreme importance to the Philippine Islands. It is my candid belief that such continued enjoyment, if it is to extend beyond the period of American sovereignty in the islands, must be based upon reasonable reciprocity as regards the trade benefits accruing to the United States and the Philippine Islands, respectively.

I believe that the steps which I have suggested are in the direction of permanent trade relations that may be helpful to both the Philippine Islands and the United States; and that failure of the Filipinos to recognize that they must extend to American products a reasonable measure of the favors extended to them in American markets will result, in the not distant future, in the very serious curtailment of the benefits which the Philippines now receive from their trade relations with the United States.

With regard to so much of the quotation from the mission's statement as alleges that I do "not propose to settle the question of independence" but merely hint "that sometime, ultimately, it may be granted," reference to the record of my testimony before the congressional committees is the most complete answer. Far from merely hinting that independence may sometime be granted I have emphatically affirmed the commitment of the United States to grant independence to the Philippine people when they may be prepared to establish a stable government. I have also emphasized the equally binding related commitment of the United States to continue its sovereignty and protection over the islands until the necessary preparation for the establishment of a stable government may be reasonably accomplished.

It is constantly claimed that Congress should now fix a definite future time at which independence will become effective. The claim is made that the fixing of a definite time will provide a needed element of certainty as regards future political and economic conditions in the Philippine Islands. There is no doubt that the prescribing, in legislation passed to-day, of a definite time when independence shall take effect would provide a specious appearance of certainty. It is equally obvious that such legislation would, in fact, be subject to modification or repeal by any subsequent Congress. The citizen of the United States does not demand to be advised as to the tariff and business laws in accordance with which his activities will be conducted 5 or 20 years hence; and it is both unreasonable and impracticable that certainty in similar matters should be provided for the citizens of the Philippine Islands.

Mr. THURSTON. In behalf of the members of the committee, I wish to commend the patience, fairness, and ability exercised by the chairman during these long hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Thereupon, at 12.07 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)