has little if any adverse effect on American farm and dairy products. As long as copra, the raw product from which that oil is extracted, comes into the United States duty-free from all the world, imposition of a duty on Philippine coconut oil would be utterly useless as a means of benefiting American farm or dairy interests.

If Philippine coconut oil should be subjected to import duties, and at the same time an equivalent duty were imposed on all copra imports, there would be initiated a series of complicated and uncertain consequences. The dual action mentioned might destroy the Philippine coconut-oil industry, materially increase the cost of a necessary ingredient of soap and other American manufactures, and involve correspondingly increased expense to American consumers of those articles. Those consumers, of course, include the large number of people engaged in agriculture and dairy farming. The same dual action might increase slightly the price of American margarine to the American consumer and destroy an American export trade in coconut oil; but the price spread between margarine and butter is so wide that probably no increase in butter consumption or prices would result. On the other hand, the imposition of tariff duties on Philippine products would almost certainly involve the loss of very valuable American markets in the Philippine Islands for various American products. Some of the most important of these (for example, cotton goods, condensed milk, cigarettes, wheat flour, and soap) are based on the production of American farms and dairies.

Should coconut oil be excluded from the United States, the purpose would be to substitute for it American-produced cottonseed oil and animal fats. American cotton is not grown primarily to produce cottonseed oil, nor is the American animal industry conducted primarily to produce the fats and oils with which it is alleged that Philippine coconut oil competes. Such by-products would have to command absurdly high prices in order to affect appreciably the net income of cotton or animal industries in the United States.

It is evident that, except for American investments in the Cuban sugar industry, the cessation of duty-free imports from the Philippine Islands would have little or no appreciable economic effect upon the United States or upon any particular American industry.

A point worth mentioning in connection with the possible effect of Philippine independence upon the United States is the public debt of the islands. The Philippine public debt (net total about $60,000,000) is evidenced by bonds, issued under the auspices of the United States Government and held almost exclusively by Americans. The practical certainty of default on these bonds in case of premature independence raises the pertinent question of the moral obligation of the United States to protect the holders of these bonds.

It must be evident even to the casual observer that the propaganda for the independence of the Philippine Islands among interested groups in the United States is as well organized as it is in the Philippine Islands, though for an entirely different reason. The United States has not fulfilled its obligation socially, economically, or politically in the Philippine Islands. Congress has the right to decide that the United States will not go forward in the fulfillment of this obligation. But in making that decision it should frankly face the fact that it has disarmed the citizens of the Sulu Archipelago and the mountain Province of Luzon with the understanding that it would prepare

them for citizenship where they could maintain their rights in a civil government without the use of arms. It has not brought them to the place where they have the capacity to defend their rights through civil process. They have not even the capacity to elect their own representatives and governors.

Congress may, of course, be told that the Filipinos will carry on the work of preparing these backward people for citizenship, but Congress should remember also that it is delivering these same people into the hands of their hereditary enemies. The United States has achieved remarkable results in overcoming age-old antipathies, in preparing the non-Christian and so-called pagans for self-government. But splendid as the advancement has been, there is much yet to be accomplished. Patient and understanding treatment, kindliness and encouragement and time will be required.

I regret that I have taken up so much of the time of the committee in giving a general outline of the Filipino problem but I thought that that would be necessary before discussing specifically the so-called Hare bill, which I am advised is the bill that the committee is attempting to complete and which I am also advised is practically identical with the Hawes-Cutting bill now pending in the Senate. I hope that, if I discuss this bill frankly, my remarks will carry no offense to the distinguished members of this committee, for whom I have a high regard and whose names the bill happens to bear. Nor would I desire any of the other members of the committee to assume that there is anything personal in my estimate of this bill, its present form or its purposes.

I believe that the proposed legislation is not constructive. It is destructive.

There is not one purpose in the bill that is courageous. It is a surrender to every fear from which the world is now suffering.

For selfish and indefensible reasons, it provides for the tearing down, over a period of five years, of all the splendid achievements made in the Philippine Islands over a period of 32 years. Its enactment is not intended to build the foundation for a Filipino nation. Its purpose must be to destroy any possibility of the success of an independent Filipino nation.

The method prescribed for the severance of American trade relations would destroy the economic life of the Philippine Islands. It would reduce the revenues of the Philippine government by 40 per cent within a period of five years. The Philippine revenues now are not adequate to meet the expansion necessary in the school system of the Islands and other required improvements, such as roads and public buildings. The tearing down of the present structure would prevent the continuance of the development of the school system. It would cause a reduction of the present school facilities. Not only that, it would place upon the Filipino government the necessity of organizing and paying for representation abroad. There is no source indicated by any of the provisions of the bill from which the Philippine Islands can obtain revenue to pay for representation abroad. The bill would require the withdrawal of United States troops from the Philippine Islands. About 7,000 of those troops are Filipinos who would have to be discharged. With the reduced revenue the government of the Philippine Islands would be unable to transfer these Filipinos to the service of the new government. The withdrawal of

the United States troops alone would reduce the circulation of currency in the islands by $12,000,000 a year.

The closing of the American market to the Philippine Islands at the end of five years or at gradual stages throughout that period would reduce the revenues of the government by 40 per cent. The closing of the United States market abruptly, or the statement that it will be closed in a short period of five years, will cause the bankruptcy of the Philippine National Bank, because that bank has unliquid assets in the form of obligations from sugar centrals that will be worthless or, at best, greatly depreciated in value, when the United States market is closed to Filipino sugar. The failure of that institution will drag the other major financial institutions of the islands down with it.

The Hawes-Cutting bill, if enacted by Congress in its present form, would cause economic chaos, social anarchy, and political revolution in the Philippine Islands.

Now let me pay attention directly to some of the specific provisions of the bill.

Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, the matter of limitation is the thing that all the witnesses pointed out as necessary for this very readjustment that you are talking about. For instance, we took the testimony of Mr. Orth, who represents the great New York organization of those people who have opposed independence. He says in his testimony that the uncertainty of the termination of our relations is the thing that is hurting the business man. Now the Filipino says the same thing. He can not advance economically or financially unless he has a program, a fixed program with a fixed date. Now, I wish you would explain, if you can, why you are in disagreement with all of our business men and the Filipinos in the matter of fixing a date, and how you can justify the thought that you are going to help them without a definite period being stated.

Senator Pittman has suggested that five years is too short. The committee may decide that five years is too short. But all of these men now without exception, Mr. Secretary, said that a fixed date was necessary. That is the opinion of the Philippine Commissioners. I think it is the opinion of this committee. And I do not see how without setting a date you can work out the program that you have in mind.

Secretary HURLEY. All right. Now let me attempt to answer that. Let us see if we can find some historical incident that would kind of fix it in the minds of every one present. When the Lewis and Clark Expedition was sent into the Northwest Territory did they tell them to get to Vancouver on a certain date, or did they tell them to go to Vancouver?

Senator HAWES. They did not do that with Columbus when he came to America, either.

Secretary HURLEY. You are right, you are right. The object was the discovery of a new land. They did not tell him when to turn back, or how many days to stay out. You are confronted with conditions that must be achieved, and it is a question not of time, but of accomplishment.

Senator HAWES. When they started Lewis and Clark across the country they sent them with so many men, so much food, and so many guns. Now what the Filipino wants to know and what the

business man of America wants to know is when is this going to stop,. so they can both build their programs.

Secretary HURLEY. Well, you could not have said to Lewis and Clark when they were going to get to Vancouver. They did not know and nobody else knew it. It was an accomplishment that they set out for. They had an objective to achieve. What I am telling you is that it is not a question of days or years, it is a question of objectives in the Philippines.

Now, to respond to Senator Pittman's idea. I realize fully that Congress can make this policy, and I would not like for this committee, or anyone else, to get the idea that, when Congress has spoken, I will do other than my utmost to put what may be done in the best form and the best light that is possible. It is my duty to do that, and I would do it willingly. What I am trying to tell you this morning is that I do not agree with the method that the bill sets forth, and I do not believe you can accomplish successfully what is there planned. I believe that we should adhere to the policy that we have followed, together with a suitable limitation of immigration and the limitation by some appropriate method, of the importation of sugar, as I have already suggested. These measures should be accompanied by increased participation by Filipinos in the executive functions of their government. Such measures might include the establishment of a legislative cabinet, which is something that I have also suggested.. This would involve greater Filipino responsibility in the conduct of their domestic affairs and prepare them more fully for independence so that when the United States withdraws it will be with the everlasting gratitude and friendship of the Philippine people, and with the assurance that a nation is going to continue.

Senator HAWES. Mr. Secretary, you do not believe that either branch of Congress is going to put a limitation on immigration or imports until the question of independence is settled?

Secretary HURLEY. Well, I think it should. The question of independence is settled. The policy of the United States on independence is completely settled. That policy has set certain economic, social, and political objectives and, when they are attained, independence will follow as naturally as the day follows the night. The question of the policy of the United States is settled.

Senator VANDENBERG. In terms of objective, Mr. Secretary, how will the Filipino people themselves ever know whether they actually want this thing that they call independence and how will we in turn ever know whether they have economic stability, except as we try the thing out by stages in respect to the economic restrictions they ultimately must confront?

Secretary HURLEY. Senator, you know I agree with you that a child never learns to walk until it is permitted to walk. There were men in the Philippine Islands who told me that one of their objections is that we have treated them like children. I do not want to be guilty of that charge. We have not. In keeping with the suggestion that you have just made we have continuously enlarged their participation in their own government. And I agree with the theory that you have expressed that they must continue to take responsibility. One of the first responsibilities they should take now is to submit an economic program for their nation.

Senator VANDENBERG. The program that you have been asking for primarily is a program which indicates their selfsufficiency in respect to their financial responsibility. I am asking you how they can ever know whether they are satisfied to live under a complete American tariff, or how we can ever know whether they successfully can do it until we have actually applied at least a portion of that tariff over sufficiently reasonable periods of time so that the event can justify a permanent conclusion?

Secretary HURLEY. I have the answer to that in my statement on your bill. I might say this to you that I agree with your theory with one very definite exception. If the application of that policy, whether put in force by the Filipinos, on their own request, or put in force by the United States, would break down the economic situation in the Philippine Islands so as to bring about disorder, I would oppose it; because what we are bent on doing now is maintaining orderly government in the Philippine Islands. Now I am not convinced, Senator, that the Filipinos themselves are always controlled by the better judgment of the nation any more than we are. We at times, even with all our experience, have made economic mistakes that have brought deleterious results upon the nation. Now the only phase of your economic program that I fear is that it might be put in effect by the Filipinos after you have given them a right to do so, and that the structure may thereby be destroyed, resulting in chaos while our flag is still floating in the islands. The disagreeable duty of restoring orderly government would be in the hands of America. That is the only phase of it that I fear. I agree with you that it leaves the initiative to them; but I think that the responsibility is one that the United States can not possibly shirk while its flag is still floating in the Philippines. I agree fully that if they have complete independence, their own judgment should then control. But, inasmuch as we are obligated to maintain an orderly government, we can not permit anything that might bring about disorder.

Senator VANDENBERG. But will we or they ever reach the objective except as we undertake to approach it progressively?

Secretary HURLEY. I think that Senator Pittman has answered that question in much more beautiful language than I could approach. He has said that the progress toward that end made in the 32 years of our occupation, and continuing to-day, is the most marvelous episode in the governments of the world. We are approaching, and approaching honorably and steadfastly, that period when the Filipinos will be in a position to take over their government and run it.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, I think that is just a speech, Mr. Secretary, with all respect. In these 33 years we have not approached economic self-sufficiency by one inch apparently.

Secretary HURLEY. That is a principal reason why I am opposing independence to-day. They have not yet economic self-sufficiency, and we have not yet taken measures drastic enough to direct the minds of the Filipino political leaders toward economics. Your bill would do that. If you can do that without bringing on the serious consequences that I can see in your bill, why, that would be a very good thing to do.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, but the 33-year period of history that is behind us has no hope in it respecting economic self-sufficiency, has it?