Page images

Certain of the companies also subsidize kitchens or restaurants for the single worker, where a man can get board for $14 per month for three meals a day, or less, depending on the number of meals he wants to take at the mess.


And finally let me refer to the value of the company hospitals in reducing infant mortality. The Filipino rate has recently been reduced from 244.51 per 1,000 births to 190.17 largely through the work of these hospitals and their staffs. The maternal death rates likewise are much better in the country areas covered by such hospitals. The value in money can not well be estimated, were even 10 or 15 per thousand of the Hawaiian babies saved, that are now doomed by the frightfully large rate of 206.1 per 1,000, the largest rate now in the Territory.

I do not wish in this article, to give the impression that I believe conditions as to labor in the two industries are ideal. I do wish, however, to point out that improvements have been made and that they continue to be provided at a rate that indicates a sympathetic treatment of the question by the managers. Further progress in this line is dependent upon the price of sugar and I am confident that the leaders will not deny to labor a fair and reasonable share in the earnings as opportunities improve.

The solution of the question of labor undoubtedly lies in further attracting the citizen, and I am hopeful that this little study will focus attention to the opportunities that are now available.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, Mr. Chester Gray, who appeared before the committee a few days ago, finds that he has omitted to insert some specific recommendations to the committee, and he would like to have the right to supplement his former statement.

If there is no objection, it will be so ordered.



In specific reference to the provisions of the Hare bill H. R. 7233, the following ideas are worthy of consideration and are recommended for the consideration of the committee.

1. When the qualified electors of the Philippine Islands vote to elect delegates to a constitutional convention, and when they later vote to adopt the constitution submitted to them by such convention, proof positive is given that such electors desire and demand independence.

2. Independence should be considered as being definite, absolute, and immediate within a short period after the constitution for the Philippine people has been approved by them and by Congress. The pending bill should be so revised that the President shall issue a proclamation declaring absolute, complete, and immediate independence at a date not later than six months following the date of the above action.

3. A period of five years, beginning on the date above recommended by presidential proclamation, should be occupied in the transition period following independence and the complete economic severance of existing trade relations between the United States and the Philippine government.

4. In this 5-year period the step up or advancement of tariff rates of duty should be put into effect as was contained in the original Hawes-Cutting measure, and for the following reasons:

(a) A gradual application of increasing tariff rates of duty will secure for the new Philippine government more income to meet the necessary increased expense of the new government.

(6)A continuation of the present free trade relationships, either by allowing all or only definite portions of Philippine products to enter into our markets, will encourage a continuation of the present economic situation between the two peoples so that at the end of a 5-year period the situation would be practically the same, and maybe worse than at the present time.

(0) The gradual assumption of tariff rates of duty between the two peoples will encourage a world-wide development of trade for Philippine products, whereas a limitation of import plan will have the reverse effect.

5. The portion of the bill, section 6, which refers to the relation with the United States pending complete independence, should be deleted; and that

portion of the original Hawes-Cutting bill which relates to the gradual 5-year step up of tariff rates of duty between the two governments should be substituted for the reasons just above enumerated.

6. A plebiscite at the end of a 5-year period is not necessary, and undoubtedly if included in the legislation would serve mainly to promote unrest, uncertainty, and doubt, both economically and governmentally, throughout the period.

7. With the plan outlined first above, relative to a presidential proclamation declaring independence soon after the constitution is approved; with the Philippine government thereafter being an independent one; it is proper that language relative to the question of exclusion of Philippine immigrants, proposed by Speaker Roxas of the Philippine House of Representatives, be included in this legislation.

8. Since it will be quite impossible to draw a bill which adequately will cover all the governmental and economic adjustments which will need to be made between the two peoples through the transition period, it would be well to add a feature not yet incorporated in any issues of the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill. A commission constituted either of Members of Congress, or jointly of Members of Congress and citizens, might be found very helpful if given broad powers to adjust matters which appear in the transition period and which can not be foreseen in the formation of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. I might say that this will conclude the hearings of the committee on this subject, and we hope to call the committee one day next week, as soon as we can get the hearings printed, for an executive session to go into the consideration of the bill. However, the Secretary of War desires to submit some comments on the statement submitted by the Philippine legislative mission to the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs of the Senate. :sume there will be no objection to having these comments appear in the record at this place.

I as

[ocr errors]






The statement which is published on pages 4330-4333, inclusive, Congressional Record of February 18, 1932, consists of a series of numbered paragraphs under each of two general headings. The first of these general headings relates to matters in regard to which the mission states that it is “in substantial accord with Secretary Hurley.” The second of the two general headings relates to matter which the Mission presents as “ bearing upon the conclusions of Secretary Hurley with which we beg to disagree.” It is unnecessary to point out that my testimony, as contained in the record of hearings, is a more complete and accurate statement of my position than is apt to be presented by attempted brief generalizations drafted from sources presenting opposing views.

A detailed answer to the statement of the Philippine mission would involve repeating or reviewing lengthy presentations heretofore made by myself in testimony and other public documents as to which the record speaks for itself. As an indication, however, of the type of argument set forth in the mission's statement, attention is invited to a single item contained therein and the following comment is submitted in regard thereto.

Under the heading “ Suggestions of Secretary Hurley” (see p. 4332, Cong. Rec. of February 18, 1932) the mission, referring to me, states: “He does not propose to settle the question of independence. He merely hints that some time, ultimately, it may be granted. Immediately, however, he proposes that congressional action be taken limiting the free entry of Philippine products into the United States, and also Philippine immigration into continental United States. This is the first time since the American occupation of the islands that such a proposal has come from an authoritative, official branch of the American Government. It is not only contrary to the avowed American policy of altruism in the Philippines, but is diametrically opposed to the position heretofore taken on this question by the War Department, by the Governors General of the Philippines, and by every American administration. It will de


prive the Filipinos of priceless privileges and rights which they now enjoy under the American flag, the withdrawal of which could not but be interpreted by them as both unjust and discriminatory.” This statement of the mission is most interesting in view of the following facts.

At a public hearing held January 26, 1932, on pending Philippine legislation before the House Committee on Insular Affairs, the representatives of the Philippine mission, who had been appearing before that committee, were requested to submit to the committee any proposed amendments to the bill then specially under consideration. (H. R. 7233, the earlier form of what is generally known as the Hare bill.) In the related discussion which took place at the hearing on January 26 in connection with the submission of the proposed amendments, one of the members of the committee stated: “Some of us have well defined ideas as to the question of immigration, this exclusion of immigration or regulation of it. May I ask that they (referring to the Philippine representatives) include in their statement detailed views as to that?One of the Philippine representatives (Speaker Roxas) then stated: “That is not our preference; but we will indicate what we are willing to do.

We are willing to accept the immediate restrictions (italics not in original) and to accept a maximum quota. Then after independence, if it is the desire of Congress to impose the full force and effect of immigration laws of the United States, it is the privilege of Congress to do that.”

At the next hearing before the same committee on January 29, 1932, the chairman of that committee announced that he had received a letter from the chairman of the Philippine mission, Acting Senate President Osmeña, transmitting the amendments proposed and that he would like to insert them in the record of the hearings at that point. A member of the committee then requested that a brief resumé of the proposed amendments be made by Speaker Roxas, who had made the principal detailed presentation of the views of the mission regarding pending legislation.

Among the amendments proposed at that time by the Philippine mission was a new section 6 to be inserted in the first form of the Hare bill (H. R. 7233). That amendment provided, in substance, that from the date of the inauguration of a proposed new form of government in the Philippine Islands, under American sovereignty, and thereafter until the final withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippine Islands, the same rates of duty which are required by the laws of the United States to be levied, collected, and paid upon like articles imported from foreign countries shall be levied, collected, and paid on refined sugar in excess of 30,000 tons annually, and on other sugars in excess of 20 per centum of the total sugars imported into the United States, from Hawaii, Porto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Philippine Islands, and from foreign countries, during the previous calendar year.” The same amendment submitted by the Philippine representatives proposed quantitative limitations on duty-free shipments of Philippine coconut oil and cordage entering the United States from the Philippine Islands during the period from the inauguration of the new form of Philippine government under American sovereignty until the termination of that sovereignty, and provided that coconut oil and cordage entering the United States from the Philippine Islands in excess of the quantitative limitations so fixed should, while the islands still remained under American sovereignty, pay the full United States customs duties.

Another amendment proposed by the Philippine mission at the same session of the committee involved the incorporation in the Hare bill of a new section 8. That amendment provided that, from and after the date of the inauguration of the new Philippine government proposed to be established under American sovereignty,“ the immigration laws of the United States shall extend and apply to immigrants from the Philippine Islands: Provided, however, That during the existence of said government and until the withdrawal of American sovereignty as herein provided, citizens of the Philippine Islands seeking admission into the United States shall be considered as nonquota immigrants, and the provisions of the immigration laws, regulations, and orders applicable to nonquota immigrants shall apply to them: Provided, further, That the number of said immigrants of the Philippine Islands shall not exceed one hundred during any calendar year.” (Italics not in original.) The provision here quoted was followed by further matter which, in substance, provided that the section in question should not apply to the Territory of Hawaii, nor to a person possessing the status or occupation of any one of certain groups or classes listed in the amendment.

The amendments thus submitted by the Philippine mission were submitted prior to my appearance before either the House or Senate committees in connection with the Philippine legislation now pending before Congress, and before I had made any recent public statement whatever upon that subject.

It will be seen from the above that the Philippine mission proposes that there should be put into effect, while American soverignty in the Philippine Islands still continues, quantitative limitations on the duty-free entry into the United States of Philippine sugar products, coconut oil and cordage; and that all amounts of those products entering the United States during that period, in excess of the stated limitations, should pay full United States tariff duties, I have not gone as far as the proposal made by the Philippine mission. The only Philippine product on which I have definitely suggested limitation in some form (preferably not quantitative limitation) is sugar; whereas the mission proposes specific quantitative limitations on sugar, coconut oil, and cordage. I have not proposed the early subjection of even Philippine sugar to full United States tariff duties while the Philippine Islands remain under United States sovereignty; whereas the Philippine mission would subject all such shipments in excess of the proposed limit to such full duties even during a period under United States sovereignty. I have, however, sought to agree, to some extent, with the principle of limitation proposed by the mission. In doing so I regard limitation, however effected, primarily as a logical step in preparation for independence and as an appropriate step looking toward readjustment of trade relations on a basis of mutually advantageous trade reciprocity thus tending to stable future trade relations, satisfactory both to the Philippine Islands and to the United States.

It will also be seen that the Philippine mission proposes that the immigration laws of the United States should be extended and applied to immigrants from the Philippine Islands while those islands still continue under United States sovereignty, subject to the proviso mentioned above. Apparently, therefore, the Philippine mission, which takes exception to any proposal on my part “ That .congressional action be taken limiting the free entry of Philippine products into the United States, and also Philippine immigration into continental United States," made proposals, identical in principle, before the House Committee on Insular Affairs prior to the submission of any such proposals by myself. This fact lends special interest to the statement of the mission quoted above, that the limitations on Philippine products and Filipino immigration, the proposal of which it implies originated with me, will deprive the Filipinos of priceless privileges and rights which they now enjoy under the American flag, the withdrawal of which could not but be interpreted by them as both unjust and discriminatory.”.

If limitations on the free entry of Philippine products into the United States and on Philippine immigration into the continental United States, at my suggestion, would “deprive the Filipinos of priceless privileges and rights which they now enjoy under the American flag,

*, it is rather difficult to see upon just what basis the mission previously recommended the incorporation in the Hare bill of amendments reflecting similar limitations.

After its comment reference tariff and immigration limitations, the mission further states, referring to myself: “He would compel the Philippines to revise their tariff laws so as to impose higher duties on articles coming from foreign countries and thus force increased consumption of American products by the Filipino people. Such a scheme, if carried out, would embark the United States on a policy of exploitation of the Philippines.” My testimony can be searched in vain for any justification of the statement contained in the first of the two sentences quoted above. I have, however, indicated that, if the trade relations between the Philippine Islands and the United States are to be adjusted to a basis that may be expected to continue, there must be established some reasonable reciprocity as regards the benefits from those relations received by the United States and the Philippine Islands, respectively. I have further pointed out, in substance, that an appropriate step toward the establishment of mutually satisfactory trade relations would be the initiation of action by the Philippine legislature which would tend to give to American products entering the Philippine Islands a reasonable measure of the protection that is now afforded to Philippine products entering the United States. That suggestion is by no means based simply on the principle of giving additional benefits to American trade. While the Philippine Islands constitute an important present, and more important potential, market for American prod

ucts, the continued enjoyment of American markets is of supreme importance to the Philippine Islands. It is my candid belief that such continued enjoyment, if it is to extend beyond the period of American sovereignty in the islands, must be based upon reasonable reciprocity as regards the trade benefits accruing to the United States and the Philippine Islands, respectively.

I believe that the steps which I have suggested are in the direction of permanent trade relations that may be helpful to both the Philippine Islands and the United States; and that failure of the Filipinos to recognize that they must extend to American products a reasonable measure of the favors extended to them in American markets will result, in the not distant future, in the very serious curtailment of the benefits which the Philippines now receive from their trade relations with the United States.

With regard to so much of the quotation from the mission's statement as alleges that I do “not propose to settle the question of independence” but merely hint “ that sometime, ultimately, it may be granted,” reference to the record of my testimony before the congressional committees is the most complete answer. Far from merely hinting that independence may sometime be granted I have emphatically affirmed the commitment of the United States to grant independence to the Philippine people when they may be prepared to establish a stable government. I have also emphasized the equally binding related commitment of the United States to continue its sovereignty and protection over the islands until the necessary preparation for the establishment of a stable government may be reasonably accomplished.

It is constantly claimed that Congress should now fix a definite future time at which independence will become effective. The claim is made that the fixing of a definite time will provide a needed element of certainty as regards future political and economic conditions in the Philippine Islands. There is no doubt that the prescribing, in legislation passed to-day, of a definite time when independence shall take effect would provide a specious appearance of certainty. It is equally obvious that such legislation would, in fact, be subject to modification or repeal by any subsequent Congress. The citizen of the United States does not demand to be advised as to the tariff and business laws in accordance with which his activities will be conducted 5 or 20 years hence; and it is both unreasonable and impracticable that certainty in similar matters should be provided for the citizens of the Philippine Islands.

Mr. THURSTON. In behalf of the members of the committee, I wish to commend the patience, fairness, and ability exercised by the chairman during these long hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. (Thereupon, at 12.07 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)

« PreviousContinue »