NOTE.-The_newspaper circulation data used in this table is from the International Year Book number, of Editor and Publisher, for 1932.

The total number of newspapers which have gone on record during the past year as specifically against immediate independence, as discovered by this survey, is 246. The total number which have gone on record during the same period as against retention of the islands, the survey indicates, is only 21. Many newspapers, of course, have expressed no opinion on the issue.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD BRUCE, OF SAN FRANCISCO, REPRESENTING CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OF SAN FRANCISCO, PORTLAND, AND TACOMA

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Chairman, I understood from the chairman of the committee that the discussion at these meetings was simply to be in the nature of suggestions in reference to the present HawesCutting bill. Apparently, it is now determined to greatly widen the discussion, in which event I think there are many matters that should be brought up before this committee, in the way they were brought up before the House committee. I would like, before knowing what I should say, to know what the policy of the committee on that point is.

Senator METCALF. Senator Hawes, what is your feeling on that? Senator HAWES. It was our understanding that these witnesses were not to discuss the question of policy of the bill, or the human or

106240-32-6

political factors in it, but to discuss the machinery of it, where it related to exclusion, or tariff.

Senator METCALF. Then why do we not permit Mr. Bruce, if he so desires, to go ahead along that line, and then later, if it is desired

Mr. BRUCE. I would like, if I may, to reserve the right to reappear. Senator METCALF. Is that agreeable to you, Senator Hawes? Senator HAWES. Certainly.

Mr. BRUCE. My name is Edward Bruce. My Washington address is the Mayflower Hotel. My San Francisco address is No. 2 Pine Street. I represent the Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco, Portland, and Tacoma on the Philippine question.

Senator PITTMAN. Before you go into that, Mr. Chairman, I may have to leave here. I have a short statement, prepared by the representative of the Philippine Legislature in answer to one question which the Secretary of War raised this morning, and that is, that they had developed no financial policy looking to future independence. The statement is very short. I think it ought to go into the record at this point, for two reasons. First, it is pertinent to the statement of the Secretary to-day, and besides that, it would give him an opportunity to read it before he comes back here Saturday, and he could make any answer he sees fit to it. So, I ask consent to have this published in the record, without reading it. It is a 3-page statement.

Senator METCALF. I think it is very proper, Senator. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

The statement of the Secretary of War that the Filipino leaders have not formulated an economic program in the event of independence is incorrect. All the pleas for independence presented by Filipino representatives have called the attention of Congress to the fact that to bring about a liquidation of AmericanPhilippine trade relations without injury to interests concerned or harm to the Filipino economic structure a reasonable period must be provided, together with independence, for the adjustment of such economic relationship. This program is contained in the Hawes-Cutting bill and its purpose is to maintain substantially the status quo as to the volume of reciprocal free trade with the United States for a period of five years, during which time it is believed economic conditions may be adjusted to meet the new conditions upon the complete severance of political ties, and more specifically to allow Philippine industry now dependent upon the free American market a time for adjustment and to place them on a competitive basis. While this adjustment is taking place we will diversify our products with a view to finding other markets than in the United States. What the effect of this trade arrangement will be on the finances of the Philippine government is not difficult to surmise. With this program the Filipinos believe that when independence comes they will then be at least as financially able to support their government as they are now.

Moreover, should the new burdens and responsibilities which independence will entail require the expenditure of funds which are not now available, the Filipino people will undoubtedly be ready to increase the light tax burden they are now carrying.

Beyond the scheme proposed in the Hawes-Cutting bill and in the Hare bill covering economic relations, it is not intelligently possible to formulate another program, nor should it be required as a condition precedent to congressional action on these bills. Of no country in the past aspiring to independence has this been considered necessary. The United States, upon the declaration of independence, did not even consider such a problem. Cuba was not required to do so before the withdrawal of American sovereignty. Uninformed as the Filipinos are to-day of the terms and conditions upon which their independence may be granted, or when the withdrawal of the American sovereignty shall actually take place, they are not now able to anticipate a hypothetical situation and take it as a basis upon which to formulate an economic program covering their industries, their trade, and the finances of their government. Our economic soundness to-day is not disputed. It is demonstrated by the fact that we are maintaining a balanced budget, a stable currency, and have not had difficulty in providing for the pay

ment of the national debt at a time when more powerful countries can not show similar conditions.

With reference to the national bank, the Secretary of War asserted that independence in five years would produce its collapse, alleging that the bank now has frozen assets closely tied up with the sugar industry. The Hawes-Cutting bill does not propose to kill the sugar industry in the Philippines. It specifically provides for continued favorable conditions affecting the industry, at least during the 5-year period prior to independence. The sugar mills of the Philippines now owe the national bank about 25,000,000 pesos. During the last five years these mills paid to the bank 21,000,000 pesos on the capital, and 15,000,000 pesos interest on the original indebtedness of 46,000,000 pesos. These figures show that were our present trade relations with the United States to continue, the mills may be expected to pay on the capital indebtedness the same amount which they paid during the 5-year period preceding, so that at the end of the 5-year period proposed in the Hawes-Cutting bill the mills will only be indebted to the bank in about 5,000,000 pesos.

The Filipino leaders are not unaware of the economic elements which enter into the Philippine question. They have taken pains to view them in their true aspects and to inform their people of their significance. The Filipino people understand that independence will bring about a termination of reciprocal free trade relations with the United States. They know it may produce economic hardships and increased tax burdens, but they are prepared to meet the responsibilities which will devolve upon them.

The Secretary of War emphasized the fact that the Filipinos are not tyrannized nor governed autocratically. We have no wide disagreement with the Secretary of War on this point, but submit that good government has never been considered a substitute for self-government and independence, and that what the Filipinos now desire is the opportunity to carve out their own destiny and live an independent life in conformity with America's declared policy.

Mr. BRUCE. I would like to say that I practiced law and lived in the Philippines and in China for 14 years and have made more or less of a lifetime study of the oriental questions. I would also like, in a preliminary way, to say that I believe it is only fair to point out that the interest of the west coast in the Philippine problem is not one that directs itself merely to the protection of the investments of the west coast in the Philippine Islands, but there is a broader point of view, involving the problem of solving the Philippine question in such a way that it will not unnecessarily disrupt the trade relations between the United States and the Orient or do damage to shipping interests on the west coast.

We feel, in the West, that our destiny and the destiny of the United States is more and more bound up with the Orient, and that our trade relations with Europe are bound to lessen, and that our future trade relations are bound to be more and more important with the Orient. It is imperative to handle the Philippine question, not only with the least possibility of damage to American and Philippine investments in the islands proper, but to satisfactorily solve our whole problem and destiny in the east.

I would like to make one other statement, if I may. It was stated at these hearings that the Filipino people are for absolute, complete, and immediate independence. I think it is also only fair to point out in this connection the statement made by Speaker Roxas at the hearings in the House, which I quote as follows: In reply to a question as to whether he was for immediate, absolute, and complete independence, he made this statement:

We have an artificial market here—

He was referring to the United States

We have an artificial market here which may be withdrawn from us at the will of the American Congress. We want to be free immediately, or as soon as possible. We impose no conditions. We request no concessions that America out of her sense of justice would not believe that she ought to grant to us.