have high losses due to evaporation of the excess moisture it contains, and much higher handling and lighterage costs in the harbor of Manila, as compared to the lower costs companies in this country have.

On this point, the market on coconut oil is set more often by the Pacific coast crushers, than it is by the crushers in the islands. There are many times when we are unable to compete with the Pacific coast crushers, but I do not think it is ever true that the Pacific coast crushers are unable to compete with the American crushers in the islands. The United States Tariff Commission has shown the cost of crushing copra in the Philippines to be approximately the same as in the United States, about $8 a ton. Their report, I think, will soon be issued, and you will be free to examine in detail the results of their studies.

Senator METCALF. Have you any further questions?

Senator HAWES. No.

Senator METCALF. Have you anything further you would like to present?

Mr. CRAIG. No, sir. I only ask that we be given sufficient time without limitations or restrictions on our business to liquidate our investments without suffering too heavy a loss.

Senator BROUSSARD. How much time?

Mr. CRAIG. For our particular need-I am not talking now about the exact time when independence should be granted-we should have a minimum of 20 years to liquidate our investments. Any change in the present tariff arrangement on coconut oil would mean that we would have to get out immediately upon the change becoming effective.

Senator BROUSSARD. When did you go there?

Mr. CRAIG. In 1917.

Senator BROUSSARD. After the Jones Act?

Mr. CRAIG. There was no tariff on coconut oil at that time, and we could never conceive of any reason why there should be one.

Senator BROUSSARD. There would be a tariff after we gave them independence.

Mr. CRAIG. There was no tariff on coconut oil from any country at that time. Coconut oil was on the free list.

Senator PITTMAN. When did you start exporting oil?

Mr. CRAIG. To the United States?

Senator PITTMAN. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. We were approximately one year in constructing our plant over there, and I would say that our first exportations to this country began in 1918.

Senator PITTMAN. What was the cost of your plant?

Mr. CRAIG. The cost at that particular time, I can not tell you exactly, but I can tell you that we have approximately $5,000,000 invested in our crushing industry there at this time.

Senator PITTMAN. I have a statement here I do not suppose it applies to your plant. Did you have any indebtedness with the Bank of the Philippine Islands when you started it-the National Bank?

Mr. CRAIG. I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment, although I will be glad to supply the information for you. I will have to obtain it from the treasury department of our company.

Senator PITTMAN. I would like to have a statement of the cost of your plant, and what part of it has been amortized to date.

Mr. CRAIG. I can tell you that we still carry on our books a net investment of approximately $5,000,000 in our total facilities in connection with the crushing and handling of coconut oil.

Senator PITTMAN. What I am getting at is this. You said it would take 20 years to liquidate. The question is, at what rate you have amortized your investment, including, of course, interest.

Mr. CRAIG. It is necessary, I think, for you to understand the answer to that question, to know that we handle oil in very large volumes, but on a very, very narrow margin of profit. Even 5 per cent of the present tariff on coconut oil from foreign countries is more than our normal margin of profit, and on that basis we can not charge off that investment very rapidly.

Senator PITTMAN. You have said it would take you 20 years to liquidate. I simply want to know the facts upon which you base that. I wish you would present them to me later.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Senator HAWES. In establishing your business, were any of the funds derived from the Philippine National Bank?

Mr. CRAIG. I can not answer you positively, but I think not. The money came from the cash reserve of our parent company, Spencer Kellogg & Sons (Inc.).

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Craig.

(Subsequently the following letter was received from Mr. Craig, together with the accompanying pamphlet referred to therein, which are herewith made a part of this record:)

Senator HIRAM BINGHAM,

BUFFALO, N. Y., March 15, 1931.

Chairman Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BINGHAM: We attach hereto copy of a pamphlet entitled "A Survey of the Present State of American Public Opinion on the Subject (of Philippine Independence) as Expressed in Editorial Comment Throughout the United States in the Past Twelve Months." This pamphlet, which is prepared by the Ten Eyck Associates, an independent research organization, thoroughly merits a place in the printed record of the Territories and Insular Affairs Committee on the bill S. 3377.

We request, therefore, your kind indulgence to the extent of having this pamphlet made a part of the record and considered in connection with the testimony which the undersigned gave before your committee on February 11. Respectfully submitted,

SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS, (INC.)., By J. D. CRAIG.

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE-A SURVEY OF THE PRESENT STATE OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUBJECT, AS EXPRESSED IN EDITORIAL COMMENT THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS

(This survey has been independently conducted, at the request of the PhilippineAmerican Chamber of Commerce, by Ten Eyck Associates, 122 East Fortysecond Street, New York, N. Y.)

INTRODUCTION

THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM

Ever since the United States acquired the Philippine Islands, the Philippine independence movement has been with us. There have been periods of quiescence, when little was heard of it. And there have been periods of bitter debate,

106240-32- -5

when not only Filipinos but Americans have considered the independence question a major political issue.

We are now in one of these periods of active interest. Filipino agitation has been strong. American senators and representatives have been badgered by their constituencies, some of which are anxious to block the competition which they feel is offered to American products by tariff-free Philippine goods. After fresh investigation, former Governor General Davis, Secretary of War Hurley, and President Hoover have all made fresh statements of their positions on the issue. Several bills are now before the Congress, demanding action. the present turmoil in the Far East has called to the attention of the general American public the extreme importance of the Philippine question.

Finally,

During the past year every imaginable argument for and against immediate Philippine independence has been brought forward. Questions of human rights, questions of America's prestige in the Far East, questions of Filipino immigration, questions of the competition of Philippine products in American markets have been so intermingled that it has been almost impossible for the dispassionate observer to discover which way the country was leaning. But one question, stated and restated by observers who have gone to the Philippines to investigate on the spot, has been steadily gaining ground as the major issue. This is the economic question: If the Philippines are given their independence to-day and pushed outside the American tariff wall, can they maintain themselves economically? And if not, have we the right to push them out?

Governor General Davis, Secretary Hurley, President Hoover, together with many other observers, feel that there is much which must still be done, much time still to pass, before the Philippines can become economically independent, and that upon this time political separation must wait. They are, therefore, against immediate independence.

Some groups of Americans, representing producers of articles with which Philippine duty-free imports are claimed to compete, feel that in this time of depression no opportunity for reducing competition should be lost. They are, therefore, either in favor of immediate and complete Philippine independence or for an immediate application of the tariff, in one form or another, to Philippine products.

There are, of course, other questions involved, chief among which is the danger to which the Philippines, independent or otherwise, are exposed in the present state of tension in the Far East. But these are the two major, opposing points of view and in recent months they have been expressed sufficiently often and with sufficient force so that the country at large has had an opportunity to consider them and to make up its mind upon their relative merits. In the past, although the Philippinos themselves have always had the country's sympathy, American opinion has been against granting them their independence. What has been the effect of the debates of the last year? Has there been a real change in American public sentiment on the question, and if so, what is the nature of this change? The following analysis of editorial opinion on the subject, as expressed in nearly every State in the Union during the past 12 months, represents an attempt to answer these questions. Inaugurated at the request of the Philippine-American Chamber of Commerce, it has been impartially conducted by an independent research organization, Ten Eyck Associates; it is based upon a careful scrutiny of the entire American newspaper press for any expression of opinion on the issue, from clippings supplied by an independent and impartial news-clipping service; it covers a period of one year ending February 20, 1932.

EDITORIAL OPINION

THE NEW ENGLAND STATES

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

New England, on the Philippine question as in other matters, takes her tone from Boston, and in this case Boston opinion is clear and unanimous. The Boston American (February 12, 1932) says: "It is to the interest of both the American and the Philippine peoples that they continue their present relationship until its future can be considered in calmer times." "It would be a mortifying spectacle," says the Christian Science Monitor in a widely quoted editorial (July 20, 1931), "to see the United States readjust its Philippine policy to fit the balance sheets of a select group of industrial and agricultural interests." "There can be no dispute," adds the Boston Transcript (June 27, 1931), "about the

soundness of the argument that the economic interests of the Philippines and their inhabitants require the present status of the Island as United States dependencies to be left undisturbed for at least another generation." "We are obligated to grant the islands independence," echoes the Boston Herald (October 31, 1931), "but we are equally obligated to start them upon an independent career with a government so stable and an economic position so sound as to afford reasonable assurance of their permanent success when on their own." Finally, the Boston Traveler (December 5, 1931) is short and to the point: "Perhaps the Philippines should be free. We don't think so, for a while at least."

One paper, the Lowell Sun, dissents, saying that "the best course would be to give the Filipinos their freedom under some sort of international protection that would safeguard their independence against aggression by Japan or any other power." (January 28, 1932). But from other parts of New England come many echoes of the same feelings that Boston holds.

Portland Press-Herald: "Independence can very well wait until circumstances are more favorable and in waiting the Philippines have all to gain and nothing to lose. (February 15, 1932.)

Waterbury Republican: "The United States can not suddenly withdraw from the islands without flagrantly betraying the very people who asked for independence. The menace of seizure by Japan or flooding of emigration from Asia or the breaking down of the country through economic pressure in a world of keen competition would be too great. Time may come when the United States may relieve itself of responsibility for the Philippines, but that time seems to be beyond the horizon now within our vision." (May 20, 1931.)

Hartford Times: "In view of all the circumstances and conditions the Secre* * * tary's (Mr. Hurley's) stand seems to be well taken The advice to proceed slowly and cautiously possesses the elements of soundness.". (February 12, 1932.)

Bangor Daily News: "As the cards lie, it would seem that the safest and best thing for our sunburned brothers of those fruitful isles is to remain under the benevolent management of Uncle Sam and the protection of his big stick." (June 10, 1931.)

Portland Evening News: "Without retreating at all from the position that the Phillippine Islands must eventually be free, this country should find it easy to concur with Secretary Hurley that the time for independence is not yet at hand, and will not be at any predictable time." (February 13, 1932.)

Portland Evening Express: "There would be no objection from anyone in this country to granting the islanders their independence if we believed that they would survive the severance of their relations with us. Most Americans who have any knowledge of the subject do not believe that under existing conditions they would, and therefore to cut them loose to shift for themselves would be to shirk the responsibilities that our past relations with them have entailed."

Haverhill Gazette: "The Filipinos have the inherent right to independence which all peoples possess. It would be nothing less than contemptible cruelty, however, to cast them adrift solely to erect a tariff wall against them.' (October 31, 1931.)

Lowell Courier-Citizen: "Uncle Sam * * * can hardly afford to let go until the islands are fit to go it alone. When that will be no one knows." (January 6, 1932).

Worcester Evening Gazette: "America is bound to see that before the islands are cut adrift they are able to maintain themselves." (June 19, 1931.)

Providence News Tribune: "Secretary Hurley's statement * * * is a con

vincing document against the proposal of those on both sides of the PacificAmerican farmers in certain lines as well as Philippine enthusiasts for freedomthat we shall terminate our connection with the islands. Some day? We are pledged to that under given conditions. But not now or soon." (February 12, 1932).

Providence Journal: "Well-informed Americans will agree that it would be bad for the Philippines as well as for us to grant them their independence in the early future." (February 10, 1932).

Other papers, scattered throughout the New England region, which hold the view that economic self-sufficiency is the prerequisite to political separation, include the Danbury News, which calls immediate independence "hardly wise"; the Ansonia Sentinel; the Norwich Bulletin; the Waterbury Democrat; the Meriden Journal; the Hartford Courant; the Hampshire Gazette; the Worcester Telegram, which observes that "America is bound to see that before the islands are

cut adrift they are able to maintain themselves"; the Springfield Union, which whole-heartedly backs Governor General Davis's view; the Springfield Republican, which says that "when independence is granted, the conditions of the grant should be considerate of Filipino interests," and that "nothing harsh or callously selfish need disfigure the disposition of the problem"; the Gardner News; the Gloucester Times; the Fitchburg Sentinel, which feels that "political independence to-day would be an illusion"; the Bath Daily Times; the Waterville Sentinel; the Bangor Commercial; the Kennebec Journal; the Manchester Union; the Newport News.

THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES

(New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

New York City, ever the home of alarmism, contributes at least one opinion which represents a frank shrugging off of American responsibility for the Philippines. "One thing that will probably happen in the next 20 years," states the New York News (January 20, 1932), “is the taking of the Philippines by Japan. We can quit these islands now in peace, or we can wait for a humiliating national adventure. Which is it to be? The Philippines are a nuisance to us, and we owe them nothing. This argument, however, is opposed by many calmer heads in equally influential positions, among them the Philadelphia Bulletin, which writes (July 14, 1931): "If this country should end free trade with the Philippines, it would forfeit its present hold on this important section of the Far East as an export outlet. American agriculture, no less than the manufacturing industry, would stand to lose immensely by such a reversal of previous policy. Other journals, small and large, back the administration's present stand in favor of waiting for the Filipinos to achieve economic independence before making further moves in the direction of political independence. The following are examples.

New York Journal: "Mr. Hurley said that it would be criminal folly to turn the islands loose in the Far East while a war is raging in China, the end of which none can yet foresee. The fact is that it would be sheer lunacy. There should be no change whatever in the present status of the Philippines, now or for years to come. (February 13, 1932).

New York Times: "There is no abandonment of the hope ultimately to set up a self-governing Filipino republic, but the strong and prevailing conviction at present was well set forth by Secretary Hurley when he declared to the House committee that the people of the islands are not yet ready for it, either economically or politically." (February 12, 1932).

New York Sun: "It would be a cowardly thing to give independence to the Filipinos now. (February 13, 1932.) New York Herald Tribune: * * * the idea of cutting the Philippines adrift for this or that selfish or cowardly reason will be as criminally foolish a hundred years from now as ten, and that the Congress could do the Filipino no greater service than by giving the islands a fixed status under the American flag * * *Secretary Hurley has made a bold and devastating sweep of practically all the humbug with which this Philippine question has been obscured. The logical sequel to his splendid use of the broom would now be a constructive program for the permanent improvement of these islands as inalienable American property. (February 12, 1932.)

New York Mirror: "For the present we ought not to surrender our possessions in the Pacific." (February 12, 1932.)

Brooklyn Eagle: "On the whole, we think it would be well for the Filipinos to distrust the sugar and tobacco Greeks even bearing gifts. Their best policy is a waiting game. (February 13, 1932.)

Albany Evening News: "The Philippines are not ready economically for independence. It would be a mistake and a danger to grant it now." (July 2, 1931.)

Newark Evening News: "It is up to us to go through with it to an end more conclusive than just granting independence because we are tired of the Philippines, or because some of their products compete with ours. (February 15, 1932.) Philadelphia Record: "Because of free importation of competing goods from the Philippines, western farm states are demanding that the islands be cut adrift. Congress and the State Department will surely not decide so momentous an issue on grounds so localized. If western farmers need and deserve protection * * * ways of furnishing that protection will be found other than that of casting the islands folk loose without assurance that their independence can be maintained." (July 5, 1931).