mean their surrender to domination by another foreign power." 1931.)

(November 9,

Kalamazoo Gazette: "To cast them off suddenly for the avowed purpose of combatting their trade would be hardly in keeping with the spirit in which we are supposed to have been exercising our suzerainty all these years." (August 1, 1931.)

Battle Creek Enquirer: "No right-thinking American wishes to surrender the Filipinos to the certain ill fortune which would attend the withdrawal of United States protection." (August 5, 1931.)

Lansing State Journal:

We understand all about the fine theories involved and we have kindly enough feeling for 'our little brown brothers,' but out judgment tells us that it is good neither for them nor for the Orient to turn them loose at this time." (January 5, 1932.)

Grand Rapids Press: "The Philippines are not yet developed either politically or economically for independence." (February 15, 1932.)

Detroit News: "Would it not be better to wait awhile, develop more diversified industries, and achieve a more balanced economic situation?" 1931.)

(October 31,

Marion Star: "Uncle Sam hasn't attempted to hide the fact that the Philippines represent a hot potato in his hands, but a potato that he can't very well drop lest it turn cold and be picked up by another party with a great need for cold potatoes. The other party might be Japan, for instance." (January 12, 1932.) Cincinnati Inquirer: "Premature independence would be dangerous both for this country and the island government.' (January 27, 1932.)

Cincinnati Times-Star: "The conclusion is inevitable that the economic dependence of the islands on the United States is such that political independence would mean economic suicide. In fact, one big commercial house in Manila has taken out insurance against Philippine independence!"

Oshkosh Daily Northwestern: "When politicians and selfish interests prate and shout about immediate independence for the Philippines, it would be well to investigate their motives." (August 25, 1931.)

Milwaukee Journal: "When you have a child you do not turn it loose in the world all at once. You expect it to grow up. In the same way we shall have to give increasing freedom of action to the Filipinos, until they finally attain a dominion status, and then, if they want it, complete independence.' (November 24, 1931.)

One moderately strong paper holds some doubts in the matter. The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette says: "If America has any notion, as some urge should be the fact, of washing hands of the bloody affair between China and Japan and permitting the entire situation in the Far East to develop and work out as it may without any intervention by us, the sooner we clear out of the Philippines the better. Otherwise, we can not clear out."

Many other papers, however, back the stand that there should be no independence, or no independence until economic self-sufficiency has been attained. Among them are the Adrian Telegram; the Flint Journal; the Grand Rapids Herald, which says that "some independence must come, but not yet and not too soon"; the Saginaw Sunday News; the Pontiac Daily Press; the Iron Mountain News, which says, "the times invite a closer cuddling under the friendly arm of Uncle Sam"; the Sandusky Register; the Steubenville Star; the Youngstown Vindicator; the Columbus Dispatch, which calls postponement "the better part of wisdom"; the Toledo Blade; the Pomeroy Tribune; the Lowellville Journal; the Springfield Sun; the Chicago Daily Tribune; the Chicago American; the Chicago Herald-Examiner; the Chicago Evening Post; the Jacksonville Journal; the Quincy Herald-Whig; the Rockford Star; the Rock Island Argus; the Danville Commercial News; the Racine Times Call; the Racine Journal News; the Kenosha Evening News; the Green Bay Press-Gazette; the Superior Evening Telegram; the Rhinelander News; the Kokomo Tribune; the Anderson Herald; the Fort Wayne News Sentinel.

THE WEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES

(Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota) "We seem about ready," says the Des Moines (Iowa) Register (November 1, 1931), "to grant autonomy to the Filipinos not because they want it, but because our sugar growers and dairymen want it." This states the issue for the region, which answers it variously. In answer to the proposal of independence, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat lays down the law (November 1, 1931): "One point on which Filipino politicians and all other Filipinos may be certain is that

they can not eat their cake and keep it too. They can not have both independence and the special American concessions that have been the life of Filipino prosperity." The Minneapolis Tribune, commenting upon proposals for a progressively increasing tariff against Filipino products, says (September 18, 1931): “If such a transition is possible only at the expense of the American farmer, and if it simply means that the dairy farmer must submit a great deal longer to a competition he should not have to undergo, then we believe some more abrupt shift to autonomy is in order." The strong St. Paul Pioneer Press, however, takes a much less radical view of the problem (September 25, 1931): "The interest of the dairy farmer in ending competition with imported coconut oils is one weighty factor for consideration in connection with the Philippines. What they stand to gain is not so much as they are being led to expect. By no means does all, or even most, of the imported copra products go into butter substitutes.

Their interest in Philippine independence is certainly not such a one as precludes their sharing whole-heartedly in a wish that America meet the problem with full regard for every obligation that is owed the Filipino." And the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, one of the strongest papers in the region, sounds the final note of warning against precipitate action (July 20, 1931): "We would be false to our pledges and would abandon our altruistic aims, and would doom our unparalleled undertaking to establish a republic in the Philippines, if we withdrew prematurely, before our task is finished."

Other strong organs in the region have expressed candid opinions on the question. A few are quoted below:

Joplin Globe: "To grant the Filipinos independence when they are in nowise able to govern themselves and have no prestige to protect themselves from the ambitions of different nations of the Orient would be a poor way for us to carry out the obligation of humanitarian service we have all along pretended and believed to be our aim." (July 14, 1931.)

Kansas City Star: "Until the necessary foundation for political independence is laid in a self-supporting economy, the conclusion of the Secretary of War must be accepted that the best interests of the Fiipinos and of the United States are served by a continuation of the status quo.' (February 14, 1932.)

Kansas City Times: "We should not be keeping faith with the Filipinos if we should give them political independence while they are still economically dependent." (November 10, 1931.)

Kansas City Post: "Japan's treatment of China will delay Philippine independence indefinitely." (February 2, 1932.)

Topeka State Journal: "Premature withdrawal might upset stability, with unfortunate consequences to the peace of the world." (April 23, 1931.)

Wichita Beacon: "Our insular possessions in Pacific waters will wisely wait for a more auspicious time before insisting upon political separation from the Stars and Stripes."

Emporia Gazette: "Their (the sugar trust's) Senators will vote to sever all connection with the islands. This would mean unemployment and suffering in the Philippines, and higher sugar prices for the American consumer. could be nicer, if you happen to be a beet-sugar producer?"

And what (December 18, 1931.)

Lincoln State Journal: "The granting of immediate independence would be a disaster for the Philippines * * * "" (October 23,1931.)

Omaha Bee-News: "When the new Congress assembles its Members will be bombarded with demands to haul down the American flag over the Philippines upon the ground that a great mass of Philippine products are coming into this country in direct competition with American farm products. American farmers should not allow themselves to be swindled by false propaganda of this sort." (July 11, 1931.)

Fargo Forum: "Sufficient time for sound economic adjustment is most desir(October 30, 1931.)

able."

Sioux Falls Argus-Leader: "The United States should grant the Filipinos their freedom but ordinary decency requires that we properly prepare this child we have adopted before casting it out upon the cold world."

Duluth News-Tribune: "Immediate independence under present conditions would be a calamity.' (September 26, 1931.)

Duluth Herald: "The present agitation in this country for immediate freedom for the Filipinos would be more impressive if it did not so palpably come from people who care more for shutting out Philippine sugar for the sake of their own beet sugar than they do about human freedom and the sanctity of the word America has given to free the Philippines as soon as it has a right to do it." (October 31, 1931.)

St. Cloud Times: "If the independence is to be given them (the Philippines), as a matter of fair play there should be an economic adjustment for the benefit of both them and the United States. The problem is too big and too important to be solved by merely getting out from under." (September 22, 1931.)

Sioux City Tribune: "The moral obligation this country assumed in attempting to make the Philippines self-sufficient has not yet been fully discharged. In the very nature of things the little brown brother is apt to remain the white man's burden for some time to come, however discomforting the facts may be." (October 31, 1931.)

*

Dubuque Telegraph-Herald: "Immediate independence is not the right course to pursue, because it will destroy the Filipinos economically * * and will push them unprotected into the midst of Asiatic militarism and imperialism." (September 3, 1931.)

Cedar Rapids Gazette: "It is to the interest of the United States, both sentimentally and practically, to devote some attention to the economic security of the Philippines before turning them loose in a world that has even our own veteran industrialists bewildered." (September 1, 1931.)

Mason City Gazette: "We believe that the islanders are in no sense prepared for independence, that to grant independence would throw the conflicting races and religions at each other's throats overnight." (August 10, 1931.)

Three papers, one in Minnesota and two in Missouri, are inclined to minimize our responsibility in the Philippines and to wish we were out of them. "If they can not successfully paddle their own canoe now," says the St. Cloud TimesJournal, "they will not be better prepared in 5 or 10 years. If they want to be free, let them go with our blessing. If they can not make a go of it, Japan is close at hand." The St. Louis Star adds (February 12, 1932): Considering the best interests of the islanders, independence may be a mistake. But isn't the making of mistakes one of the rights of man? If the Filipinos are making a mistake, and are anxious to make it, they should be allowed to do so." Finally, the St. Louis Times says (February 10, 1932:) "It may not be to-morrow or within half a century that she (Japan) will assert her influence in the Philippines, but the time will in all probability come. Meanwhile, we should be well out." Other papers throughout the district, however, seem generally opposed to immediate independence, taking their stand behind those who, with President Hoover, believe that economic independence must come first.

In Iowa, other papers backing this stand include the Council Bluffs Nonpareil, which calls it "sound and sensible"; Wallace's Farmer; the Iowa City Press Citizen; the Davenport Times; the Waterloo Daily Courier; the Atlantic News; the Fort Dodge Messenger and Chronicle.

In Kansas, the same stand is also taken by the Iola Register, which says, "It would indeed be a tragic joke if the Philippines should be finally given their independence for no other reason than to help the sugar interests of Cuba"; the Leavenworth Times, which says, "They must wait until they are strong enough to fight their own battles"; the Newton Kansan-Republican, which says, "The time is not now"; and the Hutchinson News.

Additional Minnesota papers which have expressed themselves as backing this stand include the Rochester Post-Bulletin; the Faribault News; the Albert Lea Tribune; the Brainerd Daily Dispatch; the Crookston Times.

From Missouri comes further backing for this position, from the Hannibal Courier Post, which calls immediate independence "not keeping faith with the Filipinos"; the Kansas City Journal Post, which calls waiting for economic independence "eminently sense"; the Springfield Leader; the Columbia Missourian. Nebraska adds backing to the "no political independence before economic independence" stand from the Kearney Hub, which says, "There is no way to let them go at present"; in North Dakota the Jamestown Sun and the Grand Forks Herald take the same stand; and in South Dakota five more journals—the Huron Huronite, the Aberdeen American, the Mitchell Republican, the Yankton Press and Dakotan, and the Vermilion Plain Talk-have gone on record as backing the same view.

THE MOUNTAIN STATES

(Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah) In these regions, as one would expect, the debate between those who wish to eliminate Philippine competition with American agricultural products and those who wish to deal with the Filipinos unselfishly becomes acrimonious. Those in

But that argument does not seem substantiated.

* *

*

The

the first category are well represented by the Great Falls (Mont.) Tribune, which says (January 28, 1932): "Those who have reasons of their own for opposing Philippine independence contend that the Filipinos are not yet ready for selfgovernment. Philippines should be put on the same tariff basis as any other foreign domain. The Filipinos are willing, even anxious, that this should be done. Propagandait is nothing more than that has spread the report that the Filipinos have abandoned their efforts and wish to remain under the American wing." The Ogden (Utah) Standard Examiner (February 19, 1931), adds: “Many Americans, including the sugar people, would not be opposed to granting an immediate separation. The holding of the islands may eventually involve us in trouble with Japan." The Loveland (Colo.) Herald sounds the same note (January 2, 1932): Let them (Senators Costigan and La Follette) insist upon independence for the Philippines (a matter of long deferred justice) and thus give relief from the unfair competition from those islands to our sugar and fruit and other industries." Hotly opposed to such sentiments, however, are such papers as the influential Rocky Mountain News, which says (July 15, 1931): "This imperialistic chapter in our national history will not be made any brighter if we cut the Philippines loose for the reason, and in the brutal manner, advocated by some of those interests which claim to be hurt by Philippine competition.'

Other papers throughout the region are equally strongly opposed to such action, as the quotations below indicate.

*

* * *

Sheridan Press: "Any attempt to give the Philippines their independence for mercenary reasons is very apt to prove a boomerang. It would be foolish to give it to them for the sake of a high tariff." (November 19, 1931.) Colorado Springs Gazette: "* * the hypocritical contention that the Philippines ought, of right, to be free The sugar, the timber, the dairy interests and the labor organizations of this country are disturbed by the competition of the islands and hence would have them cut loose. Give the islanders independence and Congress may deal with them without consideration of Philippine interests. This is cold, brutal, not commercially sound." (January 1, 1932.) Lewiston (Montana) Democrat News: "It might be well for us to maintain the status quo in the islands pending a further development of Japanese ambitions. (January 21, 1932.)

Lewiston (Idaho) Tribune: "There are certain to be those who will defy the voice of the President and demand independence because of tariff gains or losses. Their demand should be ignored, their votes cast aside by a militant majority." (October 31, 1931.)

THE PACIFIC STATES

(California, Oregon, Washington)

A note of scorn for those who would retain the Philippines to protect the interests of the Filipinos comes from the Yakima (Washington) Herald. "If the United States must retain control of the Philippine Islands because the Filipinos need a free market in which to sell their agricultural products," says that paper bitterly (November 10, 1931), "why should not generous old Uncle Sam abolish the tariff barrier against other nations struggling to attain economic security?" Overwhelming, however, is the opposition to this point of view. "It would be shameful," says the Fresno Bee (October 28, 1931), "to set the islands free and then, as some Congressmen have proposed, to slap a ruinous tariff on Philippine products.' "Independence could be granted the islands now only in violation of obligations assumed in good faith," writes the Long Beach Sun (May 13, 1931). "To let them go now would be an utter waste of the sums expended, the creation of a condition of chaos, and then the grabbing of the islands by Japan." Both the Los Angeles Examiner and the San Francisco Examiner (November 28, 1931) characterize the claims of American agricultural interests as "false propaganda, while the Seattle Post Intelligencer adds (October 28, 1931): "Thousands of American farmers have been deceived. The Philippines are the best customer for American dairy products." Finally comes the Hollywood Citizen with a new view of the problem which is in favor of postponing independence for reasons peculiar to the region (November 2, 1931): "Exclusion of foreign competition (in Filipino commerce) has enabled the United States to build up a good trans-Pacific commerce which it is feared will be lost by granting freedom to the islands.'

Other papers along the Pacific coast also back the "no independence without economic security" stand and attack the proposals of the American agricultural interests. In addition to the San Francisco Examiner (February 11, 1932)

and the Los Angeles Examiner (February 10, 1932), which have again expressed themselves strongly in the matter, the following may be noted:

San Francisco Chronicle: "The American market is the chief support of Philippine business. An unprepared stoppage of this outlet would be sheer disaster." (October 28, 1931.)

Fresno Republican: "Shall the United States turn the Philippines loose, only to see them tied up again, through their own acts, or weakness, to some other world power? No." (October 28, 1931.)

Stockton Herald: "Inedpendence will come for the Philippines. But it can not materialize before the people show that they are prepared to survive economically, establish a stable government, and be prepared to protect themselves from menacing neighbors.' (February 11, 1932.)

Stockton Record: "The islanders must bide their time." (October 30, 1931.) Santa Barbara Daily News: "The big question is whether the islands are ready for complete self-rule, and whether, as an independent country, they could follow the trail of independence without slipping into an economic morass. Wellinformed persons agree that the Philippines are not ready to cope with such a test, and it seems apparent that the present campaign to force the issue is born of selfishness pure and simple." (July 20, 1931.)

Riverside Enterprise: "It would be a safe guess that the United States will not soon say good-by to the little brown brothers." (May 28, 1931.)

Covina Argus: "The Filipino is not fit to govern himself. Everybody but the Filipino knows it. But some day Uncle Sam will get tired and pull out, leaving them to their own devices, and they will be gobbled up by Japan, or some other nation that has plans for their exploitation." (July 3, 1931.)

Modesto News Herald: "So gross a betrayal (the plan to put a tariff on Philippine products) of a people supposed to be under our protection that one imagines a self-respecting burglar or safe blower would view it with disgust." (July 7, 1931.) Portland Oregonian: “Agitation for independence of the Philippine Islands, which was formerly the specialty of idealists, has been taken up by others whose motives are grossly materialist." (July 24, 1931.)

Walla Walla Bulletin: "Right now the less there is talk about Philippine independence the better." (February 11, 1932.)

An inevitable conclusion: The American people do not believe in either the wisdom or the justice of granting Philippine independence at the present time. The editorials quoted in the foregoing, as has already been stated, have been gathered for the purposes of this survey with the assistance of an impartial and responsible news-clipping service. The mass of comment leads, as the reader has seen, to the inevitable conclusion that, as a whole, the American people to-day are in full agreement with those who feel that the Philippines should not now be given political independence, and, more specifically, should not be given political independence until their economic independence is assured. Nowhere has the belief been seriously stated that economic independence is at present attained or is likely to be attained in the near future. Eventual independence, yes, but not immediate independence; this is the spirit that is obviously moving the American people, with heavy stress upon the dishonorable cruelty of cutting our island dependencies off from thier largest market in present world circumstances. The feeling is also strong that in the present turmoil of the Far East, with American interests intimately involved with the Sino-Japanese dispute, and international relations in such delicate equilibrium that the introduction of new factors might upset them irrevocably, there exist additional and compelling reasons for not at present disturbing the Philippine status quo.

The following is a partial list of newspapers with circulations of 20,000 or more which have gone on record during the past year as either specifically against immediate Philippine independence, or specifically against the independence arguments of American producing groups, or definitely in favor of a policy of no political independence until economic independence has been assured. Newspapers with circulations under 20,000, holding similar views, have been excluded from this table, there being so many of them that their inclusion would have made the table unwieldy and difficult of evaluation. The newspapers represented in this table alone represent a total circulation of 15,589,740, în 34 States, and may be taken as a fair example of the present state of American public opinion on the question. It is hardly necessary to add that newspapers with circulations over 20,000 not included in this table are of course not necessarily for immediate independence; the great majority of them have expressed no view on the issue. Indeed, it has not been considered necessary to present a table listing these newspapers with circulations over 20,000 which have taken a stand for immediate independence, since, as the text of this pamphlet indicates, their number is negligible.