Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator was not present at the beginning of the hearings the other day when the Secretary went on record as stating that position very emphatically.

Senator KING. Well, it would seem to me that you might draw the deduction from his statement to-day that there was no obligation. So I think the question is very pertinent in view of the Secretary's testimony.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, please do not try to save me from any questions. That is what I am up here for, and, Senator, I am delighted to answer any questions.

We have made two promises to the Philippine people. One to give them their independence when they may be prepared to sustain a government. The other one was to prepare them to sustain that government. If the second of those obligations has already been fulfilled, do not pass an act here dragging out our sovereignty, limiting our jurisdiction, weakening our position, and still retaining responsibility without adequate authority. If we have reached a point where the Filipinos are able to sustain their independence, then give them independence to-morrow. Do not drag something out here that is going to destroy the reputation of the United States and prevent the Philippine Islands from ever taking its place as a nation among the family of nations.

Senator CUTTING. Mr. Secretary, it seems to me that our promise was pretty definite.

Secretary HURLEY. Unquestionably it is definite, and if you think that we have not promised to place the Philippine people as a nation among the nations of the world, it would be well to go back and read what Hay, McKinley, Root, Roosevelt, Taft, and all of them, throughout this entire period, have promised and the conditions under which they have promised it.

We did promise the Philippine people ultimate independence.

And, notwithstanding all that has been said about what I have said, in the attempt to misconstrue my statements, I have never apologized for that promise, and have never thought to limit or revoke it in any way.

But it has a corollary, and that is to prepare these people for the obligations which are going to rest upon them.

I have pointed out that 40 per cent of the land area of the islands has a majority of inhabitants who are still represented in the Philippine Legislature by appointed representatives. They have never been permitted to elect their own representatives.

Now the next point is this, Senator. You contend that these people are now ready for independence. Then why do you supervise their making of a constitution? Why do you not tell them to go out and make their constitution in place of writing in a bill the conditions under which they can make it? What I am telling you is that you are weakening the authority of the United States while still making it responsible for the conditions that will ensue from this bill.

Senator CUTTING. Mr. Secretary, if you will pardon me, when I asked you what I thought was a simple question, I did not expect a stump speech in reply. Now, if you will pardon me for saying so, our obligation under the Jones Act was not to recognize their ultimate independence, but their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a stable government can exist, based on appointed representatives of the people instead of elected representatives?

Senator CUTTING. I will say to you this, Mr. Secretary. A stable government has been defined repeatedly in international law, and over and over again by American precedents. It always means the government which can maintain law and order and can fulfill its international obligations. You do not include in the idea of a stable government the idea of economic stability, do you? Has that ever been at all

Senator KING. We are not very stable here in the United States right now economically.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, as a matter of fact, I would like to disagree with all this thing about the United States being so weak and so off color. I would like for us to be Americans once in a while and have the same faith in our country that our forefathers had, and not always be talking about our weakness instead of making ourselves strong. Every time one word is said favorable to America and its conditions, some one likens our situation to a situation that is not comparable to ours at all.

Senator CUTTING. Well, you would not go so far as to say that any country in the world to-day was economically independent, even

our own?

Secretary HURLEY. Well, of course, I would not, and I am saying that, if the Philippine Islands were economically stable and were prepared to elect their representatives from all of the districts, in place of having them appointed then, I tell you that if the conditions which you say exist do exist, then be courageous enough to give these people their independence at once. Why hold them under tutelage? Why keep them if all these conditions exist that you say exist? Why give them a period of five years for this? Why not turn them over to-morrow? Why not pass Senator King's bill?

Senator CUTTING. I will tell you, Mr. Secretary, if you will give me the opportunity. It is because, though it is not so stated in the Jones Act in words, the promise that we made certainly implies a desire on the part of the Philippine people for independence. The only way to find out their desire is to have an expression of their views through a vote of some kind. And I feel that a period under which they can experience some, at least, of the factors which will eventually be theirs if they get their independence is necessary in order to enable them to vote intelligently on that question. Now whether it is 5 years or 10 years or 15 years concerns me very little. That is not, to my mind, the essence of this bill. I am in favor of a period of what you call tutelage, or whatever you want to call it. Secretary HURLEY. I do not call it tutelage. I am not in favor of that kind of a name. I say that is what your bill provides for.

Senator CUTTING. I would not call it tutelage myself. I would call it self-government.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes; self-government-retaining our sovereignty without authority-with our having to send troops in there if trouble arises, and nothing to prevent it; putting America in the position to be criticized, without the strength to protect itself. That is not tutelage; that is weakness.

I think the analogy you
The child can not walk

Senator CUTTING. I do not consider it so. spoke of the other day is a very sound one. until it tries to walk, and before it succeeds in walking it is going to have to take a lot of tumbles. I do not think it is weakness in the parent to let the child try to walk by itself.

Secretary HURLEY. We are doing that now. We have got an elected representative government in the Philippine Islands with 98 per cent of the Philippine officials now Filipinos. About 2 per cent of them are Americans. That is certainly giving them the greatest opportunity to walk, and at the same time is not diminishing the authority of the United States which may be necessary to sustain the situation. The people have had a government, and they have not had any abuses, and there is not one Filipino in this room to-day who will stand up and say that the American governmental representatives in the Philippine Islands have been guilty of one abuse.

Senator CUTTING. Exactly. Well, if that is not weakness, then I fail to see why the next step that Senator Hawes was now suggesting should be considered weakness either.

Secretary HURLEY. Either what?

Senator CUTTING. It is one more step in that direction.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, now, Senator, I am willing to debate this with you, but inasmuch as you think that anything I say that is in disagreement with you is a stump speech, I would rather go right to the record and analyze it.

Senator CUTTING. No; I wanted your definition of stable govern

ment.

Secretary HURLEY. I know, but when I say anything here, if it appears in opposition to the profound wisdom of you gentlemen, it is a stump speech, but what you gentlemen say is the height of statesmanship.

Senator CUTTING. No, Mr. Secretary; that is not the idea at all. Secretary HURLEY. Well, you know I get these ideas-maybe I get them wrongly, and I am willing to correct them, but since my appearance before this committee it has been a kind of lese majeste to have an opinion that does not coordinate with the minds of the members. of this committee.

Senator CUTTING. Not at all, Mr. Secretary. But I think when you are asked a question, it is at least courteous to give an answer, either yes or no.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, now, I want to submit to you and submit to this committee-I want to ask, have I declined at any time for one moment to answer any question that was asked? Have I, Senator Hawes? You are the proponent of this bill.

Senator HAWES. No, sir.

Secretary HURLEY. Thank you.

Senator HAWES. You made your answers a little bit long at times. Senator VANDENBERG. Mr. Secretary, you seem to have discovered what the mind of this committee is. I would like to know what that is.

Secretary HURLEY. Of course, they send long questions at you. You understand that, Senator.

Senator CUTTING. I first asked you for a definition of a stable government, and up to this time I have not received any reply.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, now, as a matter of fact, if you would like the definition of a stable government-you ought to at least be able to give that it has been given, I will say, thousands of times in the hearings. And a stable government is one that is able to exist on its own merits. That is a general statement. But it has been defined in every argument that has occurred before this committee and before the committee of the House. It has been defined a thousand times in the Philippine Legislature. There is no question about the definition of a stable government. It is a government that can exist.

Now this idea of shouting that the United States is not very stable now, and going into a lot of details about what economics and what unemployment have to do with the stability of the government, is merely academic, and I do not propose to discuss them in connection with this question.

Senator KING. Mr. Secretary, have you not gone into the question of economics and predicated your opposition-wait a minute; you want to answer before a question is propounded-have you not been projecting the economic question or factor into this discussion to the subordination of the question of political independence, and have you not contended that they were not entitled to their independence because of the economic crisis that we had come to? You have based your argument entirely on economics, have you not?

Secretary HURLEY. No; that is what you have said, Senator.
Senator KING. I am asking you if you did not say that?

Secretary HURLEY. No; I did not say that.

I told you in the beginning that the objective of the United States was threefold. That it was the social, economic, and political development of these islands for independence.

(The Secretary's further analysis of the Hawes-Cutting bill, as submitted to the committee, is as follows:)

9. CERTAIN OUTSTANDING OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

The enactment of S. 3377 would:

(a) Inaugurate a period of hasty and premature liquidation of investments upon which are based the most important present factors in the foreign trade and domestic business of the islands.

(b) Result almost certainly, at or before the inauguration of the independent government of the Philippine Islands, in a disastrous economic collapse in the trade and business of the Philippine Íslands, with an attendant acute financial crisis; in widespread bank failures, involving loss of public and private deposits; in heavy drop in property values; in corporation and individual incomes, and in public revenues; in inability of the Philippine government to meet its obligations; in loss of public confidence in the financial stability of the governnent; in currency inflation, flight of capital, dissipation of the currency reserves and governmental bankruptcy. Widespread unemployment and discontent; public disorders which the weakened government would be helpless to repress; revolution; chaos; and absorption by some stronger power would be the natural and probable sequence. (c) Subject the United States to grave risk of becoming involved in many of the conditions outlined above. It would continue to be responsible, with greatly weakened practical powers of authority and control, during a period when the situation was becoming more and more precarious as the date for independence approached, and as the anticipated conditions to follow the transfer of sovereignty were being discounted in advance.

(d) Disrupt the governmental system built up through 30 years of effort in order to permit a 5-year experiment with a new and inadequate type of Philippine government.

(e) Weaken the power and prestige of the United States by prescribing the incorporation, in the constitution for the new Philippine government prior to

independence, or provisions the inclusion of which would imply that the continuance during that period of essential attributes of United States sovereignty was by sufferance and not by right. Such provisions are those, under section 2, reference the allegiance of Philippine citizens to the United States, and the right of the United States to maintain armed forces in the islands or to intervene for the preservation of the local government, if necessary.

(f) Needlessly duplicate or confuse existing United States legislation by requiring the inclusion (sec. 2), in the temporary provisions of the 5-year constitution of the new Philippine government under American sovereignty, of provisions regarding matters already equally or more adequately covered in the present bill of rights (sec. 3, organic act) or in other existing United States legislation. (g) Make mandatory the inclusion, in the temporary provisions of the 5-year constitution, of requirements, not heretofore imposed by the United States, of a character such as the exemption of cemeteries from taxation and the obligatory use of English in the public-school system of a country whose independence within a few years is contemplated by the bill.

(h) Prescribe, for the period of approximately five years immediately preceding complete independence, trade relations with the United States which, while purporting to promote the solution of economic problems, would, in fact, reflect no adequate economic preparation of the Philippine Islands for the imminent independence contemplated, and would be futile as a measure of protection for American farm and dairy interests.

(i) Give the specious appearance of reserving important powers of American control and supervision during the period prior to independence, while providing, in fact, no adequate means for the effective exercise of the powers nominally vested in the President of the United States and the United States commissioner to the Philippine Islands (sec. 7 (2), and (4)).

(j) Fail to make clear that there shall be assigned to any executive department of the United States Government, pending independence, the general conduct of such Federal contacts as may be necessary between the United States Government and the new Philippine government.

(k) Fail to insure the due fulfillment of existing moral obligations of the United States to the holders of such bonds of the present Philippine government and its instrumentalities as may have been issued under the authority of acts of Congress and with the aid and assistance of any agency of the United States Government (sec. 2 (g), 7 (4) and 10 (4)).

(1) Purport to commit the United States to yield (section 10 (b)) to the independent government of the Philippine Islands, at its inauguration, all right of possession, control, etc., over extensive and valuable public properties without definite prior agreement as to the nature or amount of compensation to be received therefor; and would require the United States thereafter to buy or lease, from the same Philippine government, any "lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points," in accordance with such agreement as it might then be possible for the United States to make with the independent Philippine government (section 10 (b) (1) and (2)).

(m) Make no provision whatever for the further carrying out of the incompletely fulfilled obligations of the United States as regards those elements of the population of the Philippine Islands, now administered under the Bureau of nonChristian tribes and representing, at the last Philippine census, the majority of the population in nine Provinces, comprising together about 40 per cent of the total land area of the Philippine Islands.

(n) Tend to bring on, near the close of the period immediately preceding the withdrawal of American sovereignty from the Philippine Islands, such a condition of chaos as would prevent the withdrawal of the United States. In that case the charge would doubtless be made that such conditions were the result of design; that they were intended to prevent, rather than expedite, the withdrawal of American sovereignty, and to defeat the purpose of the bill.

(0) Be generally destructive, rather than constructive, in its ultimate practical effects as regards the progress and welfare of the people of the Philippine Islands.

10. COMMENT IN REFERENCE TO THE PREAMBLE TO THE ORGANIC ACT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

Bill S. 3377 contains no preamble. Its companion bill under consideration by the House Committee on Insular Affairs does, however, include a preamble. There is, accordingly, submitted here certain comment of a general character, applicable to the essence of both bills. The preamble to the organic act of 1916

« PreviousContinue »