the Islands, but in the preamble to the Jones Act in 1916. That policy is that these people shall have their freedom, not on a specific day at 2 o'clock in the afternoon-you heard me say that yesterday-but when certain conditions precedent have been achieved that will insure the perpetuity of the government which has been established. I have never said, sir, that I am opposed to Philippine independence. What I have said is that the purpose of the Hawes-Cutting bill and the purpose of the Hare bill is cowardly-that it attempts to tear down in five years everything the United States has given to the Philippine Islands Senator HAWES. Just one minute. Secretary HURLEY. No, wait until I have finished that. Senator HAWES. Wait a minute. Secretary HURLEY. I am making this speech. Senator HAWES. I want to ask you a question. Secretary HURLEY. Let me finish that sentence before I answer. Senator KING. It is a speech instead of testimony. Secretary HURLEY. It is not. I am testifying, and you wait until I finish it, and then you ask me. Now I want to tell you something, sir Senator HAWES. What do you mean by the word "cowardly"? Secretary HURLEY (continuing). That the Philippines Senator HAWES. Do you mean to say that Senator Cutting and myself and Representative Hare would introduce a cowardly bill? Secretary HURLEY. No, sir; I do not. Senator HAWES. Well, you just said it. Secretary HURLEY. Well, I will tell you what I mean to say, and I contend that it is true, that that bill has not in it one of the elements of courage. That you attempt to tear down in five years what has been built by the United States by its treasure and blood over 30 years; you attempt to tear it all down in five years, and thus destroy the possibility of the Philippine Islands ever becoming a nation among the family of nations in the world. Senator HAWES. Well then, you do not withdraw the word "cowardly"? Secretary HURLEY. Well, I do not withdraw the "cowardly". I say the bill Senator HAWES. You leave it in the record? Secretary HURLEY. No; I can not withdraw it, because it is there, and I know that Senator Cutting knows that there is no personal implication in that, and I hope that you do not feel that there is. But I do say that the terms of this bill are for the purpose of destroying-it is based absolutely on fear, it is talking about what will happen to us if we do not forsake the policy that has brought the Philippine Islands to the position where they are to-day. Senator HAWES. There is not a line in that bill that justifies that statement, not a line in it. 1 Secretary HURLEY. That is your opinion. My opinion is that such is the whole purpose of the bill. Senator HAWES. Well, then, will you state to the committee where that is a cowardly bill, and point out those things to which you object? Secretary HURLEY. Yes, sir; I will. Senator HAWES. All right. Secretary HURLEY. But I would like to do it in my own time. Senator HAWES. That is all right. Secretary HURLEY. Now I want to say to the Senator also that I may appear a little abrupt here, and I hope that you will take no personal offense. Senator HAWES. Not at all. Secretary HURLEY. But the reason that I would like to have my own opinions in this record instead of yours is because of the fact that I have read records before this committee where Filipinos appeared, whom you supposed were going to oppose independence; and you told them, before this committee, that they did not dare say a word against independence and go back to the Philippine Islands. I do not like that suppression that you attempt to inflict on everyone who comes before this committee. Senator KING. Well, that is a very serious imputation that you make against the Senator and against the committee. Not having been a member, of course, I do not know whether it applies to me or not, but if it is an imputation that there has been suppression by this committee Secretary HURLEY. There is Senator KING. Well, pardon me; let me finish my question. Secretary HURLEY. Wait a minute. It is not an imputation. It is a statement that such is the fact. Senator KING. Well, I do not believe it. Senator KING. I was not a member of the committee. Secretary HURLEY. Well, the record is the best evidence on that. Senator KING. They are not asking me to defend them, so Secretary HURLEY. Well, I am not asking anyone to defend, but I do not like Senator KING. I make the observation, Mr. Secretary, after your explosion just now, I should be very sorry if you should remain Secretary of War for an indefinite period and the Philippines be under you. Secretary HURLEY. Oh, I want to tell you that, of course, I know that I am subject to all of this critisiem that you intend to heap upon me, but I do not believe that this thing should be conducted upon a basis of pure propaganda. I believe that, if you want to free the Philippine Islands, you should not create conditions such as the Hawes-Cutting bill would create, and make us responsible for its operation, which is bound to bring revolution and chaos. If you believe that that bill should be enacted, please have the hardihood to give them their freedom the day it is enacted, and give them what commercial advantages you want, and let the revolution that will follow be under their flag instead of ours. Senator KING. Mr. Secretary, you perhaps have not done me the kindness to read my bill. I am in favor of giving them independence within two years. Secretary HURLEY. Well, I have read your bill, and I think your bill is courageous, sir. Senator KING. Thank you. Secretary HURLEY. I am talking about something that is neither fish nor fowl; that attempts to give independence and attempts to tear down everything over a period of five years, and gives the Filipinos no chance for the future. It destroys them. As for your idea that the Filipinos are in bad hands under mewhy, I believe that I am the best friend the Filipino people have in Washington to-day. I am attempting to keep a well-organized propaganda from destroying the possibility of the Philippine Islands becoming a nation among the family of nations in the world. I am fighting for the very existence of the Filipino nation. And I am combating propaganda not only in the United States but in the Philippine Islands. Of course you can make accusation against me. I am bound to have those things. But I assure you that every sentiment of my soul supports the freedom of mankind and is opposed to the domination of man over man. What I am trying to do is create a free Filipino nation that can continue its existence and not to cowardly forsake everything that we have fought for, and paid for, in the Philippine Islands by destroying this people, in a period of five years, and turning it adrift upon the world without the reasonable assurances that it can continue to exist. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, you are familiar with what is called the Fairfield-Johnson bill? Secretary HURLEY. Will you wait now? I was challenged to the record. Senator HAWES. All right. Secretary HURLEY, And Senator King has said that he did not believe that such a thing occurred. Senator HAWES. Very good. Senator KING. No, I said since I have been a member of the committee. I have only been a member of the committee this year. Secretary HURLEY. I would like for the committee to understand, though, that I do not make irresponsible statements, and I am ready to back up anything I say any time, any place, and under any circumstances. Senator HAWES. The Secretary is correct in his statement. (Subsequently the following letter was received from Senator Hawes bearing on the foregoing, which was ordered made a part of the record:) Senator HIRAM BINGHAM, UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C., February 22, 1932. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: In reading over the transcript of the proceedings of the first day, when Secretary Hurley was testifying, I find a colloquy which may be wrongly interpreted. I will ask, therefore, that this letter to you may be made part of the record. HARRY B. HAWES. During the first day's hearing, while Secretary of War Hurley was testifying, he said in part; "I have read from records before this committee where Filipinos appeared whom you supposed were going to oppose independence, and you told them before this committee that they did not dare to say a word against independence and go back to the Philippines." The testimony to which the Secretary evidently referred I find on page 140 of the hearings in the Seventy-first Congress: "Senator TYDINGS. When you get back to the Philippines the next time "Senator HAWES. He will not go back. Don't worry about that." Later, in a colloquy between the Secretary and Senator King, the word "suppression" was injected in the discussion. Senator King was challenging this statement, and the Secretary was about to read from the record, and I interrupted with the following: "The Secretary is correct in his statement." Obviously meaning that it referred to the passage in the record above, but, as the colloquy continued a wrong construction may be placed upon what I said. My statement, of course, simply referred to the statement in the record, quoted above, referring to the return of the Filipino witness to his country, and not to suppression. Secretary HURLEY. Well, if the Senator admits it is correct, why Senator KING. Assuming this committee has suppressed testimony, I regret it, and I personally would not be a party to it. Secretary HURLEY. Well, if the Senator admits that, why, I have no desire to proceed further on it. I do not want to be hamstrung. You know, as a matter of fact now, Senator, I have had to fight these things out from the J. P. court to the district court and the Supreme Court, and I can not let anyone control my remarks. And the only thing I want to admonish you all about is that you can not do it here. And I am not a Filipino witness. The thing is that I should like the right of free expression. Senator HAWES. Well, certainly, Mr. Secretary, the record will not disclose any attempt upon my part, at any time, or by any question that I have asked, to interfere with your right of expression. The record will show that at the conclusion. Secretary HURLEY. Very well, then. And I think on that basis we are going to get along very well. Senator HAWES. Well, I do not know whether we are or not, Mr. Secretary. But I am going to ask you a question. If you want to answer it or not, why, you can do as you please. You have read the Weeks bill, Mr. Secretary? Secretary HURLEY. Would you please not ask me about the Weeks bill until I have concluded my statement on your bill? You can confuse the record for those who are Senator HAWES. I do not want to confuse the record. I want to get back to this designation of this bill. Secretary HURLEY. Well now, all right. Let me tell you something about the Weeks bill. Senator HAWES. Let me ask you a question, if you please. Secretary HURLEY. All right. You asked me if I knew about the Weeks bill, and I tried to answer it. Senator HAWES. Just a minute, Mr. Secretary. Year after year bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate with a limitation of time. Now, there may be a dispute as to the proper time. Amongst other bills was the so-called Fairfield-Johnson bill, which had a limitation of 25 years. Now if this bill is cowardly, that bill, prepared by a Secretary of War, is also a cowardly bill. Secretary HURLEY. Now what question do you ask me in connection with that? You have made a statement. Have you asked me a question? To differentiate between the Weeks bill and this one? Senator HAWES. Yes. Secretary HURLEY. The answer to that question is that that bill was prepared under the direction of Secretary of War Weeks, but the direction came from Senator Willis who said a majority of this committee had decided on that program, and specifically asked Secretary of War Weeks for his suggestions as to an appropriate bill, based upon the decisions previously reached by the Senate Com 106240-32-2 mittee. I submit to you, Senator Hawes, that if this committee should instruct me to-day to prepare a measure in general conformity with the Hawes bill-to eliminate what weaknesses I find there, and to add strength where it is possible for me to do so I submit it would be unfair for you to call me the author of the Hawes-Cutting bill. In the correspondence, which was hitherto unpublished, and which I furnished to you, and you put it in the record on that bill, Secretary of War Weeks under date of April 1, 1924, addressing Hon. Frank B. Willis, acting chairman of this committee, said: I believe that I have heretofore made it clear that, in the opinion of the department, this period of 10 years is not adequate to the accomplishment of the purpose, which has justified our entering and remaining in the Philippine Islands. It is difficult to say what time would be necessary, but I would regard 20 years as the minimum in which we could hope fairly to accomplish our purpose. Senator KING. What is the date of that, Mr. Secretary? Secretary HURLEY. That is in 1924. April 1, 1924. Read the rest of this letter and you come to the conclusion that Secretary Weeks was not the author of this proposal. The related letter from Senator Willis in effect asks Secretary Weeks to prepare a bill, saying that the committee has agreed upon the time. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary Secretary HURLEY. Wait a minute now. Senator HAWES. That is in the record where we can read it. Secretary HURLEY. I know. Well then, why did you ask me a question about it, if it is in the record, and if you do not want me to speak of it? Senator HAWES. Well, I will state my question to you so that I think it can be understood. The Weeks bill provided for 25 years, and Weeks said that he would be satisfied with 20 years. Now in your testimony before the House committee yesterday you did not discuss the element of time. Now I want to know-I will make these questions direct, Mr. Secretary, if you want them, as Senator King did do you believe it is possible to set a time limit? Secretary HURLEY. I do not. Senator HAWES. You are opposed to setting a limitation of time? Secretary HURLEY. I am in favor of setting a definite degree of condition precedent, accomplishment of economic independence, that will insure the continuance of the Filipino government, and I do not believe that you can state that in years or days. Senator HAWES. Well, if you have to decide between 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, which period would you support? Secretary HURLEY. Wait a minute. Let me further amplify that answer, will you, Senator? Senator HAWES. Yes. Secretary HURLEY. In my letter to this committee of May 15, 1930, I stated on that very subject: The period to elapse before complete independence shall be granted should be outlined, if at all, in terms of objectives in the nature of conditions precedent to independence rather than in terms of years. Now I think that is rather a definite statement. have not stated definitely. Wait a minute now. You say that I "The concrete objectives"-which I offered at that time |