« PreviousContinue »
I may state, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague Representative Florence P. Kahn, is not in favor of a bill that would exclude citizens of the Philippine Islands, or immigrants from the Philippine Islands from going into the Hawaiian Islands. Representative Kahn's wishes in this respect may be concurred in by other members of the California delegation. The full delegation of 11 members from the State of California have signed this paper.
I also desire at this time to have inserted in the record a joint resolution passed by the California State Legislature on May 15, 1920, in reference to Filipino immigration. Our legislature meets biannually.
(The resolution referred to is as follows:)
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 15
RELATIVE TO MEMORIALIZING AND PETITIONING CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION
FOR THE RESTRICTION OF FILIPINO IMMIGRATION,
(Filed with Secretary of State May 14, 1929)
Whereas the policy of unrestricted immigration as an aid to cheap labor has had a tendency toward destruction of American ideals and American racial unity; and
Whereas this policy has tended to exploit the Negroes, the Japanese, and the Hindus, resulting in their regulation or exclusion; and
Whereas Filipinos have not been among those excluded under the immigration laws of the United States in accordance with our national policy of restrictive immigration; and
Whereas the present absence of restriction on immigration from the Philippine Islands opens the door annually to thousands of Filipinos, causing unjust and unfair competition to American labor and nullifying the beneficial results to be expected from a national policy of restrictive immigration: Therefore be it
Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California earnestly petitions Congress to enact legislation which would restrict immigration from the Philippine Islands; and which will prevent all Filipinos entering the United States who are afflicted with communicable diseases: and be it further
Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly be, and he is hereby, directed to send copies of this resolution to each Member of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States.
Mr. WELCH (continuing). I have also a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation which I should like to read and be made a part of the record. It is dated February 1, 1932, addressed to me:
DEAR MR. WELCH: I am very glad to have your letter of January 29, to which is attached complete text of proposed amendment to take care of the immigration question relative to the Philippine Islands in the pending legislation which will set up the processes for granting independence to those Islands.
The farm groups did not desire to become the proponents of so-called exclusion legislation in our main effort to secure Philippine independence, but now since the representatives of the Philippine people themselves propose this amend. ment for incorporation in the independence legislation, there is no reason why it should not be so incorporated.
Accordingly, it is hoped that the amendment which you kindly submit for my consideration, or language carrying the same general thought, be used as a part of the independence legislation now pending.
I thank you for this opportunity of clarifying a situation which I was not in full position to answer as I testified on the matter of independence before the House Committee on Insular Affairs recently. Very truly yours,
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,
I have also, Mr. Chairman, a communication from Capt. John B. Trevor, who is chairman of the board of directors of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, who sent in my care a letter addressed to the chairman of this committee on the question before the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California request that that be inserted in the record ?
Mr. WELCH. At the request of Captain Trevor, who is ill and unable to be present, I ask this letter be inserted in the record. He represents about 70 organizations, a list of which is attached to his letter.
Mr. KNUTSON. What kind of societies? Mr. Brumm. I have the utmost confidence in Mr. Welch, Mr. Chairman, but it is certainly unusual to have statements go in the records without knowing the substance of them, or anything about them. That is contrary to my legislative experience in committee work.
The CHAIRMAN. I will ask Mr. Welch to read it. I might say that it is not the policy of the committee to admit statements from outsiders that may be controversial in nature, where the committee does not have the opportunity to examine the person making the statements, or to know what they are.
Mr. KNUTSON. These hearings will be cyclopedic.
Mr. WELCH. This letter is addressed to the chairman, from John B. Trevor, of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, and is as follows; it is dated February 2:
On behalf of the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, which consists of delegates representing over 70 affiliated organizations, permit me to submit the following statement for the consideration of the Committee on Insular Affairs :
At the last annual meeting of the advisory board of the coalition held at the Carlton Hotel, Washington, D. C., on October 22, 1931, the following resolutions bearing on the policy of excluding Filipinos from the United States were unanimously adopted :
“ Resolved, That the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies uphold the principle embodied in the immigration act of 1924, that all persons ineligible to citizenship be excluded from the United States; and be it further
“ Resolved, That the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies urge upon Congress the enactment of legislation excluding Filipinos from continental United States; and be it further
“Resolved, That the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies urge upon Congress the enactment of legislation to prohibit the entry of immigrants of nonassimilable races to continental United States from any geographical area whatsoever outside the boundaries of continental United States.'
In accordance with our procedure, copies of these resolutions were forwarded to the officers of the affiliated organizations for individual action by each society, and I append herewith a list of those societies whose officers have so far affirmed the action taken by the advisory board.
It is my understanding, of course, that bills now before your committee contemplate a grant of independence to the Philippine Islands. May I say in this connection that the patriotic societies have taken no action on this important question, and therefore I am unable to make any comment one way or another upon this policy. However, it seems proper to suggest that economic conditions being what they are throughout the Nation to-day, there can be no question but what the migration of cheap Asiatic labor to continental United States, be it from the Philippine Islands or from any other geographical area, constitutes a grave menace to the American standard of living, and creates conditions wholly inconsistent with the fundamental basis of the policy of restriction established by the immigration act of 1924. Therefore, it is our hope that whatever proposed legislation may emanate from the Committee on Insular Affairs respecting the future status of the Philippine Islands, that such legislation should embody a provision placing immigration from those islands into the United States upon the same basis as the entry of all other persons ineligible for citizenship.
I will ask to have inserted in the record the list of organizations which accompanies that letter.
(The list referred to is as follows:) The following organizations have specifically indorsed resolution No. 23, adopted at the meeting of the advisory board of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, Washington, D. C., October 22, 1931 :
American Defense Society (Inc.).
Women Descendants of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, National Society.
Mr. 'WELCH (continuing). Mr. Chairman, during the hearing a question arose as to the number of Philippine immigrants in the United States. The number was referred to by Mr. Roxas during his eloquent address as being the official number and could not be contradicted, as he quoted from the United States Census reports.
Those of us who are familiar with the census enumerations in California have reason to know that, while the figures quoted by Mr. Roxas were official, they failed to give anything like the correct number of Filipinos in the United States, particularly in California, by reason of difficulties stated by me at the time. And in this connection, may I read for the record a letter from State Senator Thomas A. Maloney, of California, who was United States census supervisor of San Francisco in 1930. He says in a letter dated January 25, 1932:
The enumeration of Filipinos, in my opinion, was very difficult, due to the fact that most of them are employees of hotels, apartment houses, and are caterers in homes who can afford to employ them, and work broken hours. In such a case it is very difficult for the enumerator to properly enumerate them. They eventually move from place to place and very few, if any have a permanent residence where one could go to their home and enumerate them as a family. In fact, I do not know of any instance where there were many enumerated as man and wife. Therefore you can readily see that when such a condition exists it is extremely difficult to enumerate the individual whose home is one place one week and another place another week.
While it was difficult to enumerate all races, I feel that I am safe in stating that it was more than difficult to enumerate the Filipinos.
Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Welch, for information, you have introduced a bill in the House, I believe?
Mr. WELCH. Yes.
Mr. LOZIER. Just briefly, it is identical with the Hare bill, with the exception, probably, of section 10, which relates to exclusión?
Mr. WELCH. Section 8, is it not?
Mr. LOZIER. Well, your section 10 relates to the exclusion of Filipinos into the United States. And with that exception, your bill is practically the counterpart of the Hare bill?
Mr. WELCH. The bill that I introduced at the last session of Congress, and again at this session, was fashioned largely after the Hawes-Cutting bill of last year, except that my bill provides for exclusion.
Mr. LOZIER. That is on page 16 of your bill?
Mr. WELCH. Yes. The original Hawes-Cutting. bill introduced at this session of Congress did not contain a provision dealing with immigration. Neither did the original bill introduced by our chairman, Mr. Hare. Subsequently, a bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Hawes and Cutting, with an immigration provision. The same provision is in Chairman Hare's present bill.
I feel, however, that the section dealing with immigration is not sufficient to meet the situation and the views of those who are vitally interested in the immigration question. I believe when we meet in executive session at a time when amendments are in order the committee will consider an amendment to the immigration provision in the bill which will deal more thoroughly with the question.
The CHAIRMAN. We stated at the outset of these hearings that the bill before us for consideration would be subject to amendment by the committee as the committee
Mr. KNUTSON. Well, we will read it section by section, I assume. The CHAIRMAN. I assume that will be done.
may see fit.
We have no further requests for hearings, excepting members of the Cabinet or heads of departments, and Representative Sabath of Illinois, who introduced a bill and was present Saturday and gave us to understand he would be ready to appear this morning. For some unforeseen reason Mr. Smith is not able to be with us to-day. If there is no objection on the part of the committee, the hearings will be concluded to-day—unless we desire to wait and hear Mr. Sabath and Mr. Houston later.
Mr. KNUTSON. Well, have they anything new to contribute on the subject, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. I am not prepared to say; but they are vitally interested, and they are Representatives; and I feel that we should give them an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure their statements will be brief and will not delay final consideration of the bill by the committee: and I believe they ought to be given an opportunity to be heard, if they can present themselves in the next few days. Then I suppose the committee will hear the departmental heads in executive session.
The CHAIRMAN. That will be left entirely to their discretion.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not yet been advised whether they want to appear at a public hearing, or whether what they will say will be in executive session.
The point I want to have definitely decided is whether the hearings will be concluded to-day or whether we shall hear Mr. Sabath and Mr. Houston and the heads of executive departments?
Mr. LOZIER. I know, Mr. Chairman, that both of those gentlemen were here a number of times when hearings were in progress; and I do not believe it would be an abuse of discretion to give them an opportunity to make their statements if they are here within the next few days.
The CHAIRMAN. With those exceptions, is it the wish of the committee that the hearings be closed at this time?
Mr. Cross. I move that the hearings be closed with those two exceptions, Mr. Chairman. (The motion was duly seconded.)
Mr. Cross. How many department heads were there, Mr. Chairman, who made the request?
The CHAIRMAN. We have not been fully advised; the only one scheduled so far is the Secretary of War; it may be that the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior may want to appear, and also the Secretary of Commerce.
(The motion was unanimously adopted.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will convene at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, to hear the Secretary of War. And at that time we will decide about the further hearings from heads of other executive departments, too, we will decide when the committee will go into executive session to consider the bills before it.
Mr. KNUTSON. It is your thought to conclude the hearings this week, is it not?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand adjourned.
(Thereupon, at 11.40 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until Wednesday, February 10, 1932, at 10 o'clock a. m.).