United States imports of duty-free can sugar from the Philippines, July 1, 1909– December 31, 1930-Continued

1 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, Department of Commerce.

2 Not adjusted to polarization basis; in 1928 Philippine sugar shipments to United States by quantity were 98.5 per cent centrifugal, 1.49 per cent refined, and 0.01 per cent muscovado.

3 Computed on basis of imports for consumption from all sources, including receipts from Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philippines.

4 Annual reports of the insular collector of customs, Manila, P. I.

5 Computed at the effective rates of duty (the preferential rates on Cuban sugar).

Tariff act of Aug. 5, 1909: Preference to Philippine sugar at rate on Cuban 96° centrifugal, 1.348 cents

per pound; duty-free admission of Philippine sugar limited to 300,000 long tons.

7 Tariff act of Oct. 3, 1913: Preference to Philippine sugar at rate on Cuban 96° centrifugal, 1.0048 cents per pound; limitation on duty-free admission of Philippine sugar removed.

8 Average of 4 calendar years, 1910-1913.

9 Average of 5 calendar years 1914-1918.

10 Emergency tariff act of May 27, 1921: Preference to Phillippine sugar at rate on Cuban 96° centrifugal, 1.60 cents per pound.

11 Tariff act of Sept. 21, 1922: Preference to Philippine sugar at rate on Cuban 96° centrifugal, 1.7648 cents per pound.

12 Tariff act June 17, 1930.

13 Basic information not available as of Feb. 15, 1932.

Now, Mr. Chairman, since we have wandered about considerably, I would like to state for the benefit of this committee the policy of the United States Government in the Philippine Islands.

The American policy with reference to the Philippine Islands represents a new conception of colonization. Heretofore exploitation in various forms was one of the principal concomitants of such enterprise. The American policy was the antithesis of this conception. Its fundamental thought was to introduce and develop the basic conceptions of free government. It was America's hope to plant ideas which would fructify and finally perpetuate a system of government of which the United States is the great exponent. As a necessary corollary, standards of civilization and living were to be in a constant state of progress. The treaty of Paris contained nothing in the nature of promises of independence at any time, proximate or remote. It was the ideal of the United States to develop the colony into an entity which economically, culturally, and politically would be self-sufficient. Unfortunately, the political end of the problem here indicated has been the element which has been most stressed. Many statements have been made by American Presidents during the last 30 years bearing upon this phase of the problem. Congress

in the preamble of the act of 1916 expressed itself thereon. The preamble to the act of 1916 states:

Whereas it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable goverment can be established therein.

Thus far the policy answers all the accusations made against me to the effect that I never want the Filipinos to become independent. That is what I am striving for. But, in doing it, I would like to bring about the conditions that would enable them to continue to exist after independence.

Senator PITTMAN. Just one question, Mr. Secretary. Who is going to determine when those conditions arise?

Secretary HURLEY. If you will permit me to follow out the rest of this statement I answer that question, I think, exactly. And the rest of the policy.

Senator PITTMAN. Yes.

Secretary HURLEY. Manifestly, political problems can not be separated from, nor solved independently of, related economic and social problems. The composite objective in Filipino problems by the United States is neither visionary in conception nor impossible of attainment. On the contrary, it visualizes an entirely practical program intended specifically to establish responsible government among all elements of the Filipino population; to secure to the Philippines a measure of economic independence that can be sustained indefinitely; and, finally, to develop an enlightened electorate capable of voicing an intelligent opinion concerning the position that must ultimately be occupied by the Philippines in the family of nations. To demonstrate that that stage of development has not been reached I need only to call attention to the fact that I have repeatedly asked to be shown the economic program which the Filipino leaders propose to put into effect in the event independence is granted. Up to this time no Filipino leader has offered any suggestion as to how an independent Philippine government is to be adequately financed except through favored trade relations with the United States.

In answer to one of your questions, Senator Pittman. A program by a Filipino showing that, presented to this committee, would receive my earnest attention and sympathetic cooperation. In other words, they have said, even as late as yesterday, "The Secretary has presented no new program." I have been appealing to them to please present a program that insures their continuance without dependence. They ask for immediate, complete, absolute independence. But none of their programs contemplate that. They all are dependent upon favored access to the markets of the United States.

Senator PITTMAN. Well, we will assume that the economic program carried in the Hawes bill is their program. We will assume that now, whether it is or not. That is, to permit the status quo of export to the United States to continue. Would that economic program enable them to exist?

Secretary HURLEY. No, sir.

Senator PITTMAN. Without the diversification of crops?

Secretary HURLEY. No; it would not, Senator. And would you pardon me now if I give you the rest of this statement so that we do

not get it too far separated, and I will answer that question specifically when I come to it again. I will stop there and answer it when I arrive at it.

Senator PITTMAN. I am not asking it in a captious way.

Secretary HURLEY. I know you are not, and I will say this to you, that I have followed your attitude in this with a great deal of care, and I do believe that you are interested in this problem from about the same standpoint I am, and that is to do justice to the Filipino nation, to insure its continuance, and to proceed honorably so far as the United States is concerned.

Senator PITTMAN. I think our motives are the same, but I do not think our understandings of the situation are the same.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, that is entirely possible.

Senator PITTMAN. Although I think that it is not developed that under the plan of permitting the status quo of exports on their part it would not maintain them. I think it would.

Secretary HURLEY. Of course if you do it indefinitely it would. But I want to say to you, Senator, that I have never followed any program during my whole life that I thought was chimerical. I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to give the Philippine Islands, an independent Philippine Islands, free access forever to United States markets. I do not believe that is possible. I believe that these same influences which are now trying to exclude Philippine products will be successful as soon as you grant the Filipinos independence.

Senator PITTMAN. I think, however, it will result in reciprocity between the two countries, as you have already suggested.

Secretary HURLEY. That is my program. If you agree with it, then we agree that the Hawes-Cutting program does not set up any degree of reciprocity.

Senator PITTMAN. No, but there is the proposition as to whether or not they will ever accept independence. That is up to them under the Hawes bill. If they never accept independence, why, you are in this same position. If they do accept independence and the burdens are thrown on them of not being allowed this privileged export to our country, naturally it would end unless in their judgment they should see proper to reciprocate with regard to some of our things.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes.

Senator PITTMAN. But I would not believe in forcing either one of them.

Secretary HURLEY. Senator, would you permit me now to inject this right at that point? Do you favor placing in the hands of the Filipinos the determination of the question as to whether United States sovereignty is to continue or is to be withdrawn? Is not that a question which the United States should have the right to determine for itself?

Senator PITTMAN. Yes. And I think the Congress of the United States is the one to determine that. That is what we are trying to determine-when.

Secretary HURLEY. I agree with you that the Congress of the United States is the one to make the decision. I agree with you, also, that the only questions before us this morning are: First, whether or not now is the appropriate time; and, second, if now is not the appropriate time, can there be fixed, in the future, a time at which you can

say that there will have been accomplished those conditions precedent, the present lack of which makes independence inadvisable at this time.

Senator PITTMAN. That is exactly the question.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes. That is what I am striving at, and I may be getting at it in a blunt way. But, as I said to you, I have read what you have had to say before, and I have found no sharp disagreement with you.

Senator PITTMAN. I do not want to interrupt you any more than I have to, but I just wanted to ask that question.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes. That is perfectly satisfactory, and you interrupt me any time you want to, because I think it helps to clarify. Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, just on that point. Every witness on the House side, every witness in the last Senate hearings agreed that there should be a definite date set. You are the only witness on either side that has taken the position that there should not be a definite date.

I never

Secretary HURLEY. I am proud to have that distinction. follow the band wagon. I always try to do what I think is correct. Senator HAWES. Well, it just shows that all the witnesses that have appeared either for or against the bill

Secretary HURLEY (interposing). Oh, I do not think many have appeared against the bill, except those that appeared this last time in the House. They have had their wing tips a little singed whenever they have said that they were against it.

Senator HAWES. Now, Mr. Secretary, you do not mean to say that in the long hearings that we had on this bill last year the opponents of the measure were not heard at great length and fully-as much as they wanted to say?

Secretary HURLEY. I think possibly you are right about that. Understand that while I am argumentative, I would not be insolent to anybody, and I like you too well to say anything that would imply a personal affront to you, because I do not want that. I do not want to do that.

Senator HAWES. No, Mr. Secretary, get that out of your mind entirely. This is a serious matter that the committee has before it of setting a definite date, and I just made the statement that on the House side in the present hearings, and on the Senate side in the hearings last year, every witness discussed the question of date, and every one of them set one date or another, and you are the only witness that will not agree with that position. I mean big business men and others. The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator, is it not a fair qualification of that statement that while the dates were set they were the dates not for independence but for a plebiscite? I agree with you perfectly that plebiscite would be in favor of independence. But Senator Vandenberg's bill of course does not mention a definite date when independence will come about.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes. When the Senator says that big business men appeared, he refers, of course, to men who are either conducting business in the Philippine Islands or have business interests in the Islands and are affected by the insular trade. I read very carefully what they said. And understand, I have no quarrel with them. I have the deepest sympathy with an American who is progressing any place in the world. I feel that I am very friendly to all of them, and

I am not being captious in this statement; but I noticed particularly that every one of them set the date of independence, not at a timewhen it would be for the general welfare of the Philippine Islands, but at a date that would give him ample time to liquidate, or at a date before which his term of three score years and ten would have expired. In other words, if you set the date at a time when it will not affect the man who is testifying, then, from a purely business standpoint he does not care when you set it. It will not affect him. Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. Is that not a correct attitude to take? They put their money out there.

Secretary HURLEY. Yes; and I say I have all the sympathy in the world with that attitude.

Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. If you give the Filipinos their independence most of these people think that the island government would collapse. I am one that believes that. I think that they are bound to have their independence, and I think that notwithstanding the policy you suggest, it is inevitable that they will get their independence. I do not see, as I interpret the American policy, how we can get away from giving them their independence sooner or later. Secretary HURLEY. You can not honorably do it.

Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. That is the point.

Secretary HURLEY. Now here is the point, Senator. From the very beginning, every dollar that America has put into the islands, every atom of force that it has sent there, every element of strength it has given the Philippine government has been looking forward to what? To an independent Philippine nation to take its place among the family of nations.

Now what is hard to understand is why the leaders of the Philippine Islands can keep themselves constantly in office by demanding immediately that which the United States is bound by every movement it has taken in the last 33 years to give them when they are ready to continue to exist under it. The hard thing to understand is why they will not say, "Well, here is a great nation committed to us, trying to build us up. It has assumed certain obligations that necessarily came to it when it broke the Spanish control. It could not forsake those obligations if it wanted to do so without being dishonorable. It has said, time and time again, through its foremost spokemen, that its ultimate object is the independence of the Philippine nation." The only qualification ever put on that purpose, Senator, was put on by saying, "Unless the Filipino people desire otherwise."

Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. Yes.

Secretary HURLEY. In other words, independence will not be denied them unless they so request.

Now the question that Senator Pittman asked me is a very pertinent one. Do you want to decide that you are going to stay permanently in the Philippine Islands if the Philippine people say that they want you to? Or do you want to reserve to the United States the right to liquidate its responsibilities in the Philippine Islands if it becomes desirable? Now that is the question you have before you this morning.

Senator ROBINSON of Indiana. The point I was getting at, Mr.. Secretary, was this. I understood you to say that these people had selfish interests in proposing a time limit, and I think it is perfectly