Roxas and the Press, February 22, 1947

ROXAS AND THE PRESS

February 22, 1947

News giants of pre-war days now in government service

By Inocencio V. Ferrer

President, Negros Press Club

NOWADAYS when newspapermen meet, they usually talk with nostalgia about Malacañan press conferences when Manuel L. Quezon was the “Big Chief”; others of the days when Sergio Osmeña hardly gave press conferences and reporters depended mainly on Malacañan press releases to satisfy the hunger for news of the then newly liberated readers of the Philippines; but their tete-a-tete often ends with a wise-crack at the expense of the so-called liberal administration! But whether or not one looks back at those days with longing and remembrance,—those days will never come back, and President Manuel A. Roxas is at Malacañan to stay and to perform the acts and deliver the sttements which are the daily headlines of the newspapers of the nation.

It is worthy of note that many newspapermen do not seem to see eye to eye with the President on matters of national concern. Many a post-liberation columnist has made and continues to make a name for himself and circulation for his paper by discoursing on the alleged sins of the present administration, or the frailties of the New Leader. Nevertheless the cold, naked truth is that, under the Roxas administration, members of the press are winning recognition and honors never before accorded them under any other president of the Philippines.

Consider the following facts, for instance. Recently a leading political commentator in the United States hailed the Philippines as the recognized leader of dependent nations and oppressed peoples of the world and as ranking sixth among more than fifty signatory nations of the United Nations. These honors came to the Republic largely because of General Carlos P. Romulo, permanent Philippine delegate to the UN, who is one of the most versatile editors the Philippines has ever produced and, in pre-Pearl-Harbor days, was publisher and editor-in-chief of the now defunct DMHM newspapers of Manila. Another DMHM newsman who has been the recipient of the bounty of our Liberal administration is former Press Secretary Modesto Farolan, the first Philippine Consul-General to Hawaii. Farolan was formerly general manager of the DMHM.

Diplomatic Service

A check-up of the roster of diplomatic and consular offices established by the Republic reveals the amazing but gratifying fact that, as a general rule, a former Manila newspaperman is on the payroll. The Philippine press is ably represented on the staff of the Philippine Embassy at Washington, D.C. by former Pangasinan Congressman Narciso Ramos, a former Manila reporters; A. L. Valencia, president of the potent Manila Press Club and former Bulletin star reporter; and Pilar N. Ravelo-Guerrero, also formerly of the pre-Tojo Bulletin. Newsman Ramos is minister-counsellor, while Associated Press Correspondent Valencia is Ambassador Elizalde’s public relations spokesman.

And who does not remember Salvador P. Lopez who used to preach to newspaper readers via the Herald’s “So It Seems” column? Well, if you do not know, Lopez is in New York City now; a member of Ambassador Romulo’s staff. Also with Romulo in America is former Manila reporter Renato Constantino.

Felixberto G. Bustos, free lance journalist and author of the book that helped Roxas to the presidency, is on the staff of the Philippine consulate in New York City and his boss is former Justice Jose P. Melencio, himself a writer of some distinction.

With Other Bureaus

When the Philippines sent Senator Salipada K. Pendatun and others to the UNESCO conference at paris, a newspaperman was in the entourage in the person of United Press correspondent Rodolfo L. Nazareno. J. C. Dionisio, short story writer and West Coast journalist, is at present with Consul-General Roberto Regala in San Francisco.

Not all writers and reporters are as gifted as Carlos Peña Romulo or as lucky as those who have landed sinecures abroad. Other have to stay at home and keep the printing presses rolling. There are, however, some who are doling praiseworthy work in the government service. Outstanding among them is personable, veteran Bulletin reporter Johnny C. Orendain, who, as President Roxas’ Press Secretary, is the official Malacañan spokesman. Private secretary to the President is Federico Mangahas, he who wrote the perfect prose of the “Maybe” column of the Tribune of yesteryears. Then there is D. L. Francisco, ace FREE PRESS feature writer, whose exposes and “unsolved mystery” articles were arresting the attention of the nation when FREE PRESS Staffman Leon O. Ty and I were still trying to find our journalistic souls by writing poetic trash for campus magazines. Francisco is the PRO (public relations officer, to you) of the Manila police department. Another writer with the police department is Delfin Flandez Batacan who, before his promotion as technical assistant to Malacañan Police Adviser Angel Tuazon, was in the legal section of the Manila police.

I am sure many FREE PRESS readers have been wondering what has happened to Leon Ma. Guerrero, Jr., who, as Totoy, used to thrill them with “Times in Rhymes” and, as himself, gave them those spicy and meaty stories and articles of the pre-war FREE PRESS. I have been told that Leonie is alive but he is busy with protocols and diplomacy now at the department of foreign affairs. Also at the foreign affairs office is former newsman Carlos Quirino; while Manila columnist Teodoro L. Valencia is the secretary of the Philippine board of censorship for motion pictures.

Provincial Journalists

I understand Ligaya Victorio Reyes and Leopoldo Y. Yabes are now members of the present bureaucracy; and that Poet Fred Ruiz Castro is now a colonel and head of the judge advocate general service of the Philippine army, while his chum and co-worker on the Collegian staff, Macario Peralta, Jr., is now a retired one-star general and the chairman of the Philippine veterans’ board. Writer Nicolas V. Villaruz is now special prosecutor of the People’s Court; while former College Editors’ Guild vice-president Arturo M. Olarga is justice of the peace of Manapla, Negros Occidental.

Even provincial journalists and editors have not been overlooked, so it seems, by the President. Publisher Fernando Lopez of the Times of Iloilo is the present mayor of Iloilo City, while former Commoner editor Vicente T. Remitio is the mayor of Bacolod City. Former News Clipper editor Melanio O. Lalisan, of Bacolod City, is assistant provincial fiscal of Negros Occidental and with him are assistant provincial fiscal Jose. T. Libo-on and Special Counsel Joaquin Sola who have been active in Negros journalism and still are as members of the Negros Press Club, an association of editors and writers of Negros Occidental.

Roman Holiday

But the highest honor ever paid by President Roxas to a reporter was that given to the late Benito M. Sakdalan, veteran metropolitan newspaperman who figured in a sensational case a year ago. The President personally and officially lamented his death and Executive Secretary Emilio Abello and Press Secretary Johnny C. Orendain paid him tribute and joined in his final rites.

And when one calls to mind that everytime the President goes on a junket trip he inevitably takes with him a retinue of reporters and newsphotographers, verily it can be said that under Roxas the press and the writing fraternity are having a Roman holiday.

Our aims, outlined: January 20,1907

January 20, 1907, Sunday

Our aims outlined

No class, creed, or party axes to grind

Square deal for all

THE Philippines Free Press has been founded for the purpose of bringing into closer harmony the forces best calculated to achieve real progress in these islands. Our hopes of success are based merely on the merit of the policy we are determined to pursue and on our usefulness as a news vehicle.

When Babel tower was in the first stages of erection, there was (according to the writer in the good book) a decided unity of purpose among the people of the world of that time. The Great Architect decided that a little less unity would fit the bill, and by divers tongues the disunion was accomplished. Be that as it may, language variance among mankind has certainly kept the world in a continual state of cordial discord. From Finland to the Philippines, from Panama to Peking, it is just the little difference in man’s way of saying: “Top of the morning to you!” that is mainly responsible for the barriers builded between men, for the bickerings between chancellories

• • •

Through Justice, Progress!

Strict Justice at the hands of the American administration is all that is sought by the Filipino people. And through justice, alone, can real progress be won. You cannot make bricks without straw, and you cannot rear the cross of a permanent peace upon soil scarred by the sword of strife without the co-operation of a people really free, confident, and content. These are the three great necessities, and the greatest of these is confidence. It may be achieved by the acts (not words) of the governing body.

• • •

A clean-cut policy for the guidance of the representatives of American power in the Philippines was defined at the start by the highest authority in the United States. And the cry “lack of policy” would never have been raised if some of our insular policy-pill-rollers had not lost the prescription and pounded in the mortar nostrums of their own devising. “None so blind as those who will not see,” of which sort has been the blindness of the policy-puzzled Philippine senator. The humor of it is one could not call it color-blindness.

• • •

The archbishop of Manila has recommended to the pope the appointment of a coadjutor or assistant, and he is credited with the desire that the mitre be placed on the brow of a Filipino priest. We do not intend to mix in denominational matters. At the same time, we may, perhaps, be permitted the remark that in this matter as in others, the attitude of Monsignor Harty displays considerable sound sense. Filipino Catholics are entitled to have one of the able and zealous priests of their own race placed “close to the throne.” A glance at the early chapters in the history of christianity points a moral that the churches sometimes forget. The cult of the Great Jew is today the faith of the Gentile world. Mighty was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles!

• • •

“Our lack of a policy in the Philippines, while communicating a feeling of uncertainty to the Philippine commissioners, who are performing their duties to the extent permitted them with sincere purpose, has had unhappy result in the appointment of a great herd of subordinate American officials in Manila, and to some extent in other cities, who are distinctly hostile to the Filipino. No definite mission or policy has been imported to these subordinates from the government. Our government has no policy. As a consequence, these men are simply “holding down their jobs.” They do not associate with nor care to know the Filipinos. There is to-day a distinctly anti-Filipino American element in Manila. Secretary Taft referred to this fact last winter before the New York chamber of commerce. I have heard high government officials, while passing the time in a Manila club, refer in terms of the utmost contempt, and incidentally vilely, to the Filipinos. The salaries of these men are paid by the very people they detest. Such a spirit does not exist, for instance, among the British or Dutch subordinates in India or in Java. Those countries have clear-cut policies, whether good or ill, which are well known. Many merchants, businessmen and officers of constructing companies state that the commission, while permitted little constructive power, exercises autocratic authority in inhibitory measures.”

The above is an extract from an article contributed to The World Today by Hamilton Wright, the young American “special” who looked over the Philippine field a few months ago. In the main Wright’s deductions are right, and his reference to the anti-Filipino attitude of some of our officials is unfortunately within the truth. Yet, we are not suffering from “lack of a policy.” On the contrary, we would diagnose our ailment as one of too much physic and too many conflicting physicians.

End

Free Press straw vote will feature reelection, May 6, 1939

May 6, 1939

Free Press straw vote will feature reelection

ONE of the liveliest political topics of the day, and one on which virtually everyone has an opinion, is the reelection of President Quezon. Advocated intermittently almost from the day Mr. Quezon took his oath of office, the reelection issue assumed formidable shape last week when Assemblyman Quintin Paredes openly sponsored it. The Philippines Herald whooped things up by advocating reelection in a front page editorial. Several assemblymen have prepared bills to amend the Constitution. And for the first time, President Quezon has remained significantly silent.

The national assembly, by a vote of three-fourths of all its members, may propose an amendment to the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such an amendment must be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election, at which the amendment is submitted to the people for ratification. It must also be submitted to the President of the United States for approval. If the latter approves the amendment or fails to disapprove it within six months from the time of its submission, the amendment shall take effect as part of the Constitution.

Feeling that the issue of reelecting President Quezon is a very vital one, and realizing that in the final analysis it is the Filipino people who must decide whether or not President Quezon will be reelected, the Free Press has decided to conduct a scientific, nationwide straw vote on this issue.

This weekend, 12,500 ballots will be mailed to responsible, property-owning citizens in every province in the Philippines. The ballots are apportioned among the provinces on the basis of the population of each province, as reported by the census taken this year. Due to the extra political strength of Manila, an additional 700 ballots are being distributed in the capital. The answers will be tabulated as soon as they are received and published in forthcoming issues of the Free Press.

On each ballot is the question: “Do you think the Philippine Constitution should be amended to permit the reelection of President Quezon?” Votes may be registered either as “Yes” or “No.” On each ballot will be typed the name of the province to which it is sent, but this is merely for the purpose of tabulating the final results by provinces. The vote will be a secret one and the voter will not sign his name. A stamped, self-addressed envelope accompanies each ballot, so that all the voter need do it indicate his opinion for or against the constitutional amendment to permit the reelection of President Quezon, place the ballot in the envelope and drop it in the mail. The Free Press will do the rest.

Previous polls

This will be the third big straw vote conducted by the Free Press, and with pardonable pride the Free Press can claim that its two previous polls turned out to be accurate forecasts of the people’s opinion.

The first truly nationwide straw vote on a large scale ever conducted in the Philippines was the Free Press poll on he Hare-Hawes-Cutting law, conducted in February and March of 1933. On that occasion, 10,000 ballots were mailed out and 65 percent of them were returned. Of the votes recorded, 56 percent opposed the Hare-Hawes-Cutting law. The first Free Press straw vote had accurately reflected public opinion.

Then, in August and September of 1937, shortly after President Quezon returned from Washington where he had flirted with the idea of independence in 1939, the Free Press sent out 12,500 ballots asking whether the people favored or opposed shortening the transition period. In this case, 67 percent of the ballots were returned. There was some raising of eyebrows when the final result showed 55 percent opposing and only 45 percent favoring the shortening of the transition period. Yet subsequent events showed that the Free Press poll had once more mirrored public opinion. Today virtually no one favors a shorter transition period, and quicker independence would not be accepted in the Philippines unless it were accompanied by substantial economic concessions.

Thus, with the record of two successful straw votes behind it, the Free Press now makes its third effort to find out exactly what the people think about a vital public issue.

It should be recalled that the ballots on the reelection of President Quezon are not being mailed to every voter. That is not necessary, where ballots can be sent to representative voters. Nor are all Free Press subscribers to receive ballots. Nor all assemblymen. Nor all school teachers. The idea is to get enough typical citizens to be able to reflect public opinion in general. And that can be done with 10,000 ballots as well as with 1,000,000. In fact, the famed Gallup polls in the United States “sample” public opinion by asking their questions of only 10,000 people (out of 130,000,000) and yet because those questioned are scientifically weighted, the Gallup polls have established the remarkable record of repeatedly forecasting election results with an allowable error of only three percent.

“Should the Constitution of the Philippines be amended to permit the reelection of President Quezon?”

That is the vital question at issue in the Philippines today, and that is the question which the Free Press is asking 12,500 responsible citizens to answer. Their opinions will be reported in the forthcoming issues.

Quezon and Osmena, April 22, 1933

April 22, 1933

Quezon and Osmeña

Discussions between leaders presage bitter fight over freedom bill

AFTER meeting amicably in Paris last Saturday and sailing for New York Monday aboard the s.s. Ile de France, Senate President Quezon and Senator Osmeña broke sharply over the question of accepting or rejecting the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill when they settled down to a formal discussion of the matter on board the ship.

The following report of the rupture was cabled by Carlos P. Romulo, managing editor of the T-V-T publications, to his newspapers in Manila:

“Mr. Osmeña was presenting a point when Mr. Quezon, rising and facing his colleague, broke out passionately:

“‘Sergio, you and I are growing old. We shall soon pass away. Do you realize the tremendous responsibility you and I are shouldering in accepting a bill, the effects of which will tie the hands of posterity? It is mortgaging the future of our children! We are deciding their fate, knowing that when we are gone, we shall be unable to help them!’

“‘Do you realize,’ replied Senator Osmeña, maintaining his usual calm, ‘the tremendous responsibility we will be assuming in rejecting the bill, as a result of which America may stay in the Philippines forever?’

“‘I realize that,’ the senate president replied warmly, ‘but don’t forget that if America is in the Philippines today it is by force, and against our will. With her sovereignty she has assumed responsibilities, both legal and moral, to the Filipino people. But if we accept the bill she will remain in the Islands with our consent—exercise authority without any responsibility; and I for one am unwilling to give any sanction to it.’

“The first counterproposal offered by Mr. Quezon, and made public by him last night, is to accept the bill with reservations, enumerating in the resolution accepting the measure the amendments desired, and specifying that the bill is not acceptable until the amendments are enacted.

“Further discussion elicited the information that the original bill contained a clause providing only for naval reservations, but no military stations. It was Senator Hiram Bingham who, in the conferences on the bill between the Senate and the House, inserted a provision for military reservations.

“To this time of writing there seems to be no prospect of agreement between the two leaders. The discussions are continuing.’

The meeting of Quezon and Osmeña in the Gare de Lyons in Paris was an historical one. As the express train from Nice pulled into the station, Senator Osmeña was waiting to welcome his chieftain, against whose leadership he bids fair to revolt.

“¿Cómo está, chico?” was the welcome of the man on the platform to the man in the train.

“Muy bien, Sergio,” came the enthusiastic reply. “Veo que estás bien.”

Not since a group of statesmen representing Spain and the United States sat down at a peace table to draw up the Treaty of Paris had the French capital been the scene of a meeting so vital to the future of the Philippine islands.

Long have the team of Quezon and Osmeña ruled the internal political destinies of the Philippines. On occasion opposing each other, but generally pulling together like a team of thoroughbreds, they have stayed in power for a longer period than any national leader in any other country in which the people have the vote.

But as they met in that Paris railroad station last week, they stood diametrically opposed on the most important question the Filipino people have ever been called upon to answer.

There was no vote of disagreement in their friendly meeting. With all care, Senator Osmeña helped the Quezon family out of the station and into a taxicab. He followed shortly after in another cab, and the members of the party stayed at the same hotel.

That evening the gallant senator from Cebu entertained Mrs. Quezon at dinner, the senate president feeling indisposed to attend. For hours the two leaders conferred on the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill, and as far as newspaper correspondents could gather their sessions were amiable. However, no formal statement was made, excepting on that “we cannot indicate what direction the conversation took”.

On Monday the entire party boarded the Ile de France for New York, and correspondents reported the possibility of some sort of a compromise being reached. The only direct word received in the Philippines was a message from Senate President Quezon to Sen. Elpidio Quirino, majority floor leader, who refused to divulge the full contents of the message.

Tantalizingly, he quoted the following statement from the Quezon cabal: “It does not mean that I have changed my attitude.” Manila newspapers interpreted the statement as they wanted to, some saying it meant that Quezon would continue his opposition, others declaring it meant that although his attitude was unchanged he had been forced to yield to the inexorable pressure of circumstances.

Senate President Quezon’s stay in Washington will be a brief one, the general belief being that he will begin his return trip to the Philippines, via the Pacific, in the latter part of May. With him, undoubtedly, will come Senator Osmeña, Speaker Roxas and the other weary missioners, all of whom are now feeling the pinch of reduced per diems and restricted expense money. In fact, the money appropriated by the last session of the legislature will be exhausted about June 1, although an overdraft such as was used last year will probably be resorted to in order to bring every body home.

End

The hand of the government, April 10, 1948

THE HAND OF THE GOVERNMENT

April 10, 1948

By Teodoro M. Locsin

Staff Member

HOW far should the government go into business? It depends, of course, on the kind of government. If the government is socialist, it should go into business up to its neck. That is what socialism means. Production for consumption instead of private profit. But if the government is that of capitalist democracy, then the government should stay out of business as much as possible. It should leave business in private hands.

Two opposing theories of government divided the leaders of the new American republic. There were the “Maximarchists,” who wanted to increase the powers and functions of the government, and the “Minimarchists,” who regarded government as at best a necessary evil, in theory a servant, in practice usually a despot. Alexander Hamilton, spokesman of the “Maximarchists,” called for a powerful centralized government, distrusted the common people, whom he called, if memory serves, “a great beast.” He denied them the right or ability to govern themselves, “regarded democracy as the dream of demagogues or visionaries.”

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, fought Hamilton, called for less government and more individual freedom, was twice elected presidency, opposed as dangerous his party’s plan to nominate him for a third term. He was a democrat, pure and simple. He saw the government as a wise man of China saw it: a tiger that must be tamed.

The issue of more government or less did not die when Aaron Burr shot Hamilton dead in a duel. England is trying more government, Russia has total government, while the United States, during the New Deal, went in for enterprises usually left to private initiative. The United States was faced with the problem of over-production, of a market glutted with surplus goods that could not be sold. Those goods had somehow to be disposed of, if the wheels of industry were once more to turn and unemployment to end. So, the government, since capital could not do it, went out and put people to work—or not to work, as the critics charged. The purpose was to create jobs, increase purchasing power, get rid of the surplus produce and open the doors of factories again.

The Philippines is not socialist, heaven knows, and it is certainly not communist, at the same time it is far from faced with the problem of over-production, of having more than can be sold. Of its present condition it may be said that the Philippines has not enough of anything—unless it be politicians. Yet the government is in business—and in business, apparently, to stay.

“The finger of the government is—in every pie,” complains a businessman. “It is difficult these days to go into any enterprise unless you are in the good graces of the government. You have to play ball with the politicians—or go broke.”

An exaggeration, we daresay, but not without some truth in it. The list of government corporations is impressive. The government does seem to be in everything. It is in the transportation business (Manila Railroad Co.), in the hotel business (Manila Hotel), in the shipping business (Shipping Administration), in banking (Philippine National Bank, Rehabilitation Finance Corporation), in real estate (National Land Settlement Administration, People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation, Rural Progress Administration), in abaca (National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation), in coconut (National Coconut Corporation), in cement (Cebu Portland Cement Co.), in sugar (Insular Sugar Refining Corporation, Binalbagan Sugar Central), in tobacco (National Tobacco Corporation). It has the Metropolitan Water District, the National Power Corporation, the Surplus Property Commission, the Government Service Insurance System, and it is in the wholesale and retail trade via the PRATRA and the National Cooperatives and Small Business Corporations. It is even in gambling—the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.

Some of these government enterprises can be justified: Manila Railroad, Government Service Insurance, Metropolitan Water District, etc. All are being justified—on one ground or another. The usual excuse is that the government entered into these enterprises because of the timidity of private capital. It went in to pioneer and pave the way for private investment and initiative. All very nice—but the government has not gone out yet. When will it go out?

Today the Government Enterprises Council is considering the creation of a great holding company to coordinate the activities of the various government corporations. Meanwhile government planned to enter into the lumber industry, only to retreat—this must be said in its favor—in the face of objections by private lumbermen. In this connection private capital was reassured by President Roxas that it need not fear government competition—because government businesses are always more costly to operate, their costs of production are always higher.

A revealing admission of government inefficiency—and graft? In each government corporation or enterprise the government must maintain what one official termed “internal check.”

“What’s that?” we asked.

“Well, in a private business, as you know, the businessman tries his best to make money, if he cheats, he only cheats himself, if he loafs, his business suffers and he sustains the loss. That is not true of the government corporation. We must maintain the internal check I have mentioned: an auditor, etc., to see to it that the business is being run properly, that nobody…”

“Is trying to run away with the government’s money, is that it?” we said.

“Well, if you put it that way.”

And of course a government business is not run the way a private one is, he admitted. In a private business, inefficiency is punished by ruin, so the employee who idles and loafs is canned. The manager must know his business—or else. It is not so in a government corporation.

In a government corporation, appointment to the most responsible position is dictated first by politics, secondly and incidentally by qualifications. A government corporation is the natural home of lame-ducks. The dumber you are, the better. Independent thought is subversive, imaginative planning is the quality of a man who can think for himself—a dangerous man, one to get quickly rid of. The dumber you are, the better. You may yet be the president of a bank—a government bank.

A government corporation needs, like any other business, competent employees and skilled hands. It must employ lazy and useless ones. It must accommodate as many as possible of the boys who brought the party in power a fair number of votes. Its aim, at least in practice, is not to produce but to provide the boys with a place in which to read their morning papers. What does it care about profits and losses? The losses can always be passed on to the people. The politician does not go broke, the people are the ones who hold the bag.

The Metran was an awful loss, the Nacoco has taken a terrific financial beating under the otherwise competent hands of Maximo Kalaw, PRATRA burned badly-needed milk, and it would be interesting to put the NBI really to work to dig into and make an over-all report on the Surplus Commission. The National Cooperatives and Small Business Corporation lost a lot of money last year, the National Tobacco Corporation is in a pretty bad fix, NARIC did not exactly make a name for efficient administration, and the Philippine National Bank will be lucky if it got back half, or even a fourth, of its crop loans, whose exact amount it is afraid to tell the people for the people might die of shock.

And nobody gets fired.

A government spokesman justifies the existence of these government corporations. You will find the “reason” for their existence in the charters of the respective corporations. Persuasively set forth. The fact remains that the government is in business, and we have a presidential secretary (Emilio Abello) chairman of the board of directors of a hotel, the secretary of labor (Pedro Magsalin) as chairman of the board of governors of cooperatives, the secretary of justice as chairman of the board of directors of a bank, a secretary of education (Manuel Gallego) as chairman of an agricultural settlement, a budget commissioner (Pio Pedrosa) as president of a railroad company, a carnival man (Arsenio Luz) as administrator of public property valued in tens of millions, and others we can enumerate ad nauseam.

Over them all presides the Honorable Placido Mapa, vice-chairman of the Government Enterprises Council, and over him sits His Excellency, Manuel Roxas, President of the Philippines, ruling a business and industrial empire that may yet, in the possible future, rival Ford’s or Rockefeller’s.

Such powers as these few men wield must shake a democratic heart. Power, no matter held by whom, corrupts, we know, and the philosophy of democratic government is to withhold as much power as possible from the few lest they oppress the many. In a supposedly democratic Philippines, however, the philosophy of government seems to run the other way. One recalls the cry of the Bolsheviks: “All powers to the Soviet!”

The Philippines, we have said, is not socialist, it is not communist, nor is it a mature capitalist society like the United States, harassed by the problem of over-production. What then is the Philippines? What kind of a government will it have if present tendencies are unchecked? We do not like the word, but there seems no way of evading it: fascist.

End

House passes McDuffie Bill; Tydings measure before senate, March 24, 1934

March 24, 1934

House passes McDuffie Bill;  Tydings measure before senate
By James Wingo
Free Press Washington correspondent

HISTORY repeated itself in the congress of the United States this week when, under suspension of rules, the house of representatives passed a Philippine independence bill with debate limited to 40 minutes.

Almost two years ago, on April 4, 1932, to be exact, the house passed the Hare bill. On March 19, 1934, it passed the McDuffie bill, in most respects a duplicate of the Hare-Hawes-Cutting bill which was finally substituted for the original Hare bill.

On both occasions that grizzled veteran of many a congressional battle, Resident Commissioner Pedro Guevara, rose to praise the measure being enacted. On both occasions one or two opponents of the bill spoke against it, although well recognizing the futility of doing so. Two years ago a vote was taken, and 306 members votes yea while only 42 answered nay. This week, so certain was the outcome, no vote was recorded; the bill was simply passed by acclamation.

Guevara praises bill

Rising to the opportunity presented him, Commissioner Guevara delivered a brilliant oration, until he was cut short by the presiding officer when his time was up.

Of the Filipinos in Washington only Isauro Gabaldon rose to oppose the measure. “This is the worst possible bill that could be passed for the Philippines,” he shouted, and refused to avail himself of his privilege, as a former member of congress, of sitting on the floor of the house when the bill was passed.

Real liberty measure

Senate President Quezon, also a former resident commissioner, did appear on the floor of the house and issued a formal statement declaring “This is a real independence measure.” He also had the pleasure of hearing his work praised by Rep. John McDuffie.

Congressmen who opposed the measure were scarcely heard in the rush to pass the McDuffie bill. But Rep. Robert L. Bacon, who once wanted to sever Mindanao from the rest of the Philippines, did cry out that “This bill was backed by the sugar and coconut oil lobbyists.” And Rep. Charles J. Colden, a newcomer in Philippine discussions, declared, “I am of the opinion that this whole so-called independence movement is financed by the sugar trust.”

Congressmen favoring the measure, sure of its passage, did not waste their time in supporting it. They were content with the house committee’s recommendation, which declared the bill would be accepted by the Filipino people, and added that changes deemed advisable would be made in the future.

When Representative McDuffie declared, in the course of the brief debate on the floor of the house, that the United States had agreed to give up its military bases in the Philippines, Republican members wanted to know what would happen to the naval bases. “They will be retained by the United States,” declared the author of the independence bill, “pending a conference between the president and the representatives of the independent Philippines.”

While the house thus rushed the McDuffie bill through in a hurry, the senate, ever jealous of its deliberative prerogatives, preferred to act somewhat more leisurely. So when the Tydings bill was called up, no gag rule was adopted, and everyone who wanted to speak was allowed to do so.

That perennial advocate of immediate independence, Sen. William King of beet-growing Utah, cried, “It’s an immoral outrage that we haven’t freed the Philippines long ago.”

Addressing the senate Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan insisted, “Let us make no mistake; this is the same bill that the Filipinos rejected. It is the same old bill that had been vetoed by President Hoover, pilloried by the American press and attacked by American agriculture.”

Senator Vandenberg recommended the King bill for senators who felt no responsibility toward the Philippines; his own bill, of immediate independence with 10 years of reciprocal trade relations, for those who felt a responsibility toward the Philippines.

But passage on the Tydings bill, described by the senate committee as “sound, feasible and orderly process granting independence under conditions which will be just and fair to American and Filipino interests,” was a foregone conclusion.

Gearing for elections

So sure of this were members of the Quezon mission that they began to pack up preparatory to leaving Washington. A mission spokesman said they would depart the end of the month, returning to Manila via Europe.

In the Philippines, with the enactment of the new legislation a certainty, interest was focused largely on the coming elections. In Cebu Sen. Sergio Osmeña was laying the groundwork for what he hoped would be a sweeping victory for his ticket.

In Bacon, Sorsogon, occurred the first serious fight of the current campaign, when Juan Diaz, pro member of the provincial board, pulled a revolver and seriously wounded Justo Dilloza, former municipal president. The shooting was preceded by a  discussion about the H-H-C Act.

Quezon-Palma Rift Widens During Week, February 18, 1933

February 18, 1933

Quezon-Palma Rift Widens During Week

WITH the passage of another week it became more evident than ever that Rafael Palma, former political mogul and president of the University of the Philippines, will side with his old ally, Sen. Sergio Osmeña, in case of a split over the Hawes-Cutting-Hare independence bill. Fortnight ago President Palma categorically declared, “The time has come for the country to change its leadership. We need new direction and new guidance.” U.P. faculty members promptly approved a vote of confidence in their president.

Feeling that the vote of confidence was wholly uncalled for, Senate President Quezon wrote President Palma as follows:

“I have declared in no unmistakable terms, when my attention was called to the report of your resignation, that in my opinion there was no occasion for your leaving the University because of our diverse views on the Hawes-Cutting-Hare law. I said at the time that this agreement has nothing to do with your duties as President of the University of the Philippines, and that despite the disagreement, I have never lost confidence in you.”

To which the university president replied:

“I think that in this crucial point of our history, when the ultimate freedom of our people is at stake, it is not only the privilege but the duty of every citizen to come out and express his opinion on such a momentous question. I have no regret nor apologies to offer for what I have said in the newspapers against those who believe that independence, as provided in the act, should be rejected. I think such an attitude would be a blunder in our history, and I do not want to take any responsibility for such action before the future generations.”

Most bitter shot of the exchange between Senate President Quezon and University President Palma was the following statement issued by Palma, after Quezon had urged the sending of a representative mission to the United States:

“We are rehearsing the same policy which brought us nothing but failures and disappointments this time in connection with independence. We begin by saying that Congress, by certain riders, grants us in the new law independence that does not mean anything. We argue that the National City bank of New York let loose a flood of gold to secure that law’s approval and say that many of the provisions hide many nefarious motives. And after announcing this to the public amidst applause, we promise to go to Washington, not to beg but to dictate to Congress the provisions that should go into the new law. But once in Washington, the situation changes. We begin to request and beg from one side to another, give a banquet to this and offer a drink to that person to interest him in our cause. For this the Americans have often charged us Filipinos with asking for independence but not really wanting it. Well, then, if the people want this to continue, they may continue paying for it.”

Promptly replying, Senate President Quezon declared:

“It would seem that my proposal that a national delegation composed of the representatives of all shades of opinion in our country shall go to the United States—a proposal which has been favorably received by all elements—is, however, strongly opposed  by President Palma. He says that we already have  a law, and he asks: Why try to secure another one? My answer is: Because even the advocates of the said law admit that it is very defective. This being the case, is it not our duty to strive to get one without such defects?”

The Vital Question, February 11, 1933

February 11, 1933

The Vital Question

BACK and forth across the length and breadth of the Philippines, tossed upon an apparently endless sea of speeches, the question of whether to accept or reject the Hawes-Cutting-Hare independence bill was discussed from every possible angle this week. And still there was no definite decision, still the political bosses and the intellectual leaders were divided into two opposing camps, still the people pondered upon the greatest decision which any country could possibly be called upon to make.

The main point of dissension between those supporting and those opposing the bill was whether or not it really provided independence. But in answering that question such a mass of relevant and irrelevant matter was raised that the public began to wonder what it was all about.

The most monumental event of the independence week was the wordy battle between those two staunch deans of the University of the Philippines, Maximo Kalaw and Jorge Bocobo. Their articles are reported in brief beginning on Page 28 of this issue.

The most significant event of the week was the definite stand against the bill taken by Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, president of the short-lived Philippine republic, who presided over the annual convention of the Veteranos de la Revolucion in the Manila stadium Sunday. Asserting the bill was “the outcome of the efforts since 1930 of moneyed American and Cuban interests in sugar and other industries,” the old general declared:

Aguinaldo’s opinion

“The Bill imposes conditions that would work untold hardships upon our people, aside from the fact that it is not certain whether at the end of the 10-year period our independence would actually be granted us. About the only thing that appeals to us in this Bill is the grant of independence which is the goal of our people and for which we are sincerely thankful to America. Aside from this, however, the Bill spells an incubus on the shoulders of our people.”

Two courses of action were recommended by General Aguinaldo: “To amend the Hare-Hawes-Cutting bill or to ask a better bill from the ensuing Democratic administration and congress.” He feels that “from the incoming congress a more liberal independence bill may be obtained.”

However, the convention took no action either to approve or disapprove the bill, following this sage counsel from their president: “Let us proceed with caution, my comrades and countrymen, and let us not all too hastily give our answer to the question upon which depends the destiny of our people. Let us study its provisions further and meditating over the history of our country and that of America, let us look for what would redound to the glory of our land.”

Be Prepared

Finally, General Aguinaldo enjoined his comrades in arms to be prepared for a special assembly in case the legislature attempted to take precipitous action on the question “If the legislature,” he said, “should resolve to decide before the return of the Mission, it would be our duty to make known our decision before the legislature acts. In view of this, you are requested to vote finally on the question at an extraordinary general assembly of which you will be advised in time.”

In addition to General Aguinaldo, opponents of the bill found another recruit in the person of Sen. Claro M. Recto, leader of the defunct minority party in the senate. Declared Senator Recto in Iloilo: “The bill is so bad that we cannot obtain a worse one.”

The most startling declaration during the week was made by Prof. Melquiades S. Gamboa, of the U.P. college of law. A pundit who has studied law at Oxford, he declared that the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill “is already a law” and hence already in full effect, regardless of the Philippine people or their representatives. The basis for his argument was the belief that congress had no constitutional right to refer the law to the Philippine legislation or to a special convention for ratification.

Proponents of the bill received more and comfort from U. P. President Rafael Palma, one-time member along with Quezon and Osmeña of the “Big Three” of Philippine politics. Categorically and explicitly, he declared, “The time has come for the country to change its leadership. We need new direction and new guidance.”

Since it has been bruited about that President Palma would resign as head of the university in order to reenter politics, the university faculty unanimously passed a resolution “expressing its full trust and confidence in President Palma and its wholehearted support of the continuance of his administration.” Said Senate President Quezon, “There is no reason why President Palma should resign.”

In the legislature interest was centered largely upon the fortunes of Floor Leader Francisco Varona, whose opponents attempted to take from his leadership, since he was unwilling to define his stand on the independence bill. Failing to secure the necessary number of votes to oust Representative Varona, a caucus of lower house members offered to send him to the United States along with Senate President Quezon, then proceeded to elect Rep. Jose Zulueta to act in his place should he go. Said Senate President Quezon, “I have no right to invite Representative Varona or anybody else to go with me and I can say that I have not done so.”

But Manila no longer held the center of the stage in the independence parleys this week. In Cebu a monster mass meeting on Saturday night protested against the Hawes-Cutting-Hare bill, and passed a resolution expressing “its condemnation of the work of the Philippine mission in Washington which ignored and disobeyed the instructions of the Philippine legislature and the Philippine commission of independence.”

Senate President Quezon in several public speeches said: They are at the foot of the mountain and I am far from it. What is happening with the mission is what happened to me when I was for for the enactment of the Jones bill. The only difference is that I have experience and I cannot be fooled for the second time. I was gullible  once when I was dazzled by the beauty of the preamble of the Jones bill and I failed to notice that the independence promised me by Congressman Jones was not in the law itself. The mission is now dazzled by the fixed date promise of independence and is holding to it as tightly as I held to the preamble, ignoring the other provisions of the law.”

Concerning himself the senate president said:

“Let me tell you that from a purely personal viewpoint it is foolish for me to object to the acceptance of the Hawes-Cutting act. If I were politically ambitious, there is nothing better for me than to advocate that it be accepted. Given the power that I am now represented to have, if I favor the acceptance of the Hawes-Cutting law and it is accepted by the people, I can have myself elected the first governor general of the commonwealth even by using the means resorted to by Ex-Representative Garde since, under such a law, aside from the American interests, it will be only the one fortunate enough to live in Malacañang that will be benefited by it.”

From the United States came only one significant pronouncement, the declaration by Sen. Key Pittman that the Philippines would have to accept the bill in its entirety or not at all. There could be no “acceptance with reservations,” as so many conservative Filipinos have suggested, according to the senator from Nevada. He said further that the compromise plan embodied in the bill was the inevitable solution of the question.

Independence in the Balance, January 28, 1933

January 28, 1933

Independence in the Balance
Babel of Voices Rising on All Sides—Question Buried Under Volumes of Oratory Leaders’ Future Moves Uncertain

CONFUSION worse confounded marked the week’s developments in the unfolding of the drama of Philippine independence. From Bongao to Aparri raged the question of the hour: Should the Philippines approve the independence bill enacted by the United States congress? Of almost equal interest was the subsidiary question: Should the Philippine legislature act on the bill, or should a convention of specially elected delegates decide this momentous matter?

All eyes were focused upon the impetuous figure of Senate President Quezon, who effective ended discussion of the bill during the special session of the legislature by threatening to take an immediate vote on the question unless sponsors of the bill stopped their sniping tactics.

As staunchly opposed to the bill as ever, Senate President Quezon was unquestionably supported by a majority in both houses of the legislature. Should he have put the question to a vote, there was no doubt but that his wishes would have been followed. In spite of claims that the legislature could not act on the matter until an official copy of the bill had been received from Washington, the senate president insisted that all that was necessary for a vote was for the governor general to submit the radioed copy of the bill to the legislature.

Mission Summoned

“I have an agreement with the members of the mission not to act on the bill until they return and make their report, in order that they may defend their actions,” said Senate President Quezon, “but if sympathizers of the bill continue making speeches and waging a campaign to form public opinion in favor of the bill, the members of the legislature, in spite of my wishes, may force a vote on the measure.

Having  thus effectively spiked discussion of the bill at the special session of the legislature, Senate President Quezon called a caucus of the majority party, and secured authorization to send a cable ordering the mission to return to the Philippines.

If the mission were to return, it seemed probable that Senate President Quezon had abandoned his plans to sail to the United States to work for the better bill which he felt he could secure from the forthcoming congress. Yet the next thing the mercurial leader did indicated the possibility of his departure. He had the senate elect Sen. Jose Clarin as president pro tempore, and Sen. Elpidio Quirino a majority floor leader. “As everybody knows, the question of my going to the United States has not been decided, but if I should leave there must be a president pro tempore,” explained Senate President Quezon.

The mission, in the meantime, were sitting tightly in Washington awaiting orders from Manila. Even Sen. Benigno Aquino, envoy extraordinary who joined the mission at the last moment and who had planned to start his return trip late this month, announced he had canceled his passage and would stay in Washington.

But while the senate president was charting his course in regard to the independence bill, a great barrage of opinion, pro and con, was laid down in Manila and throughout the provinces.

Among the many entities which expressed their opinions on the independence bill were: the municipal council of Manila, which opposed it after hearing a councilor make the sensational statement that the mission should be shot for treachery and the students of the Columbian institute of Manila, who “sincerely and wholeheartedly” endorsed the independence bill.

For and Against

Rafael Palma, president of the University of the Philippines, and once a member of the Big Three of Philippine politics, issued a statement deploring “the absence of perfect understanding among our leaders”. He favors the approval of the bill.

On the other side of the fence is Don Vicente Lopez, president of the International Chamber of Commerce of Iloilo, the Filipino businessman who declared before Secretary of War Hurley that independence would be ruinous without free trade for 20 years. He said:

“One need not be a prophet to predict now what will happen should the Philippine legislature accept the Hawes-Cutting Bill.

“1. Foreign capital, which constitutes more than 50% of our total, will be withdrawn as soon as possible, in two years at the most.

“2. Filipino capital, which is much more conservative than foreign capital will also be withdrawn and all the cash will be deposited with foreign banks.

“3. As a result of this withdrawal of all foreign and Filipino capital, the government of the Philippine commonwealth will be so poor after the lapse of five years that it will ask the United States to restore the Jones Bill.

“4. The Jones law may be restored but without such privileges or have gains as free trade.

“5. That, to cap it all—and in this I hope I am mistaken—we shall not say goodbye to the country, but we shall say goodbye to the home, because economic slavery will then prevail.”

Many observers chose the “middle path,” feeling that although the independence bill is far from an ideal one, it is better than nothing at all. For instance, Dr. Bernabe Africa, professor of political science at the University of the Philippines, holds that “We must meet the selfish American interests halfway. Immediate independence is impracticable. If we cannot have a whole loaf, we are wise if we take half a loaf. Under the next administration a worse bill, from the economic standpoint, might be passed.

The most interesting debate now being conducted in the daily press by Maximo Kalaw and Jorge Bocobo, the two politically minded deans of the University of the Philippines. Dean Kalaw, a member of the mission who returned early, is defending the bill, while Dean Bocobo is opposing it.

De Joya for Bill

A public clash between those favoring and those opposing the independence bill occurred Tuesday afternoon at that forum for the creation of public opinion, a convocation of students of the University of the Philippines.

For Judge Mariano H. de Joya, the principal speaker delivered a lengthy speech in favor of the bill declaring “We must accept the Hawes-Cutting-Hare Bill because it contains a definite and solemn promise of Independence, at the expiration of the ten year period of transition, thus eliminating the element of uncertainty.

“Furthermore, we must accept the Hawes-Cutting-Hare Bill, to be consistent with ourselves; and so that we may not become the laughing-stock of the World. To reject the Hawes-Cutting-Hare Bill would be impolitic, and treason to the rights and the welfare of future generations.

“Besides, if we should now reject the Hawes-Cutting-Hare Bill, the American Congress will charge us with ingratitude and with attempting to impose upon them, and they will treat our next petitions with scorn. We have no right to gamble away the gains already obtained, and thus be recreant to our duty to 13,000,000 souls.”

Judge De Joya then took up the controversial points of the bill one at a time, arguing that the retention of American naval bases in the Philippines would be a stabilizing influence in the Far East, that the trade relations provided in the bill are not unjust to the Philippines, that the limitation of immigration into the United States was a blessing in disguise and that the fears concerning the American high commissioner are unjustified.

The high spot of the convocation resulted from Judge De Joya’s statement that “What could President Quezon do, a sick man and alone, that the others, all strong and sound, could not do together?”

Securing permission to be heard, Dean Jorge Bocobo leaped to his feet and belabored Judge De Joya for “rejoicing over the failing health of our president, Manuel L. Quezon.” With anger surging through every word of his speech, he passionately declared, “If President Quezon’s health is failing, if he is a sick man, it is because he has spent all his life, has sacrificed it all for the welfare of the people.”

Judge De Joya protested that he had been maliciously misunderstood declaring, “I did not say I was rejoicing because President Quezon is a sick man. I was merely stating a simple fact as a lawyer ordinarily would.”

Opening shot of the Kalaw-Bocobo debate was fired Thursday morning when Dean Kalaw released to the press his first article, which he described as an account “of a once famous battle-cry whose echo has been lost in the recondite nooks and corners of Capitol hill.” The battle-cry was “immediate, complete and absolute independence,” which Dean Kalaw said “has served tremendously in arousing the people”. Therefore supporters of immediate independence, he argued, were barking up the wrong tree, were seeking something impossible to attain.

Probably one of the most vital pronouncements on the measure will be made by Senate President Quezon at one o’clock next Sunday morning, when he will address the people of the United States over a nationwide radio hook-up which will carry his voice into millions of American homes.
What the Filipino leader says then will undoubtedly have a very real and definite bearing on the final outcome of the problem.

And Now. . .

THE fevered excitement incidental to the unimagined passing of the Hawes-Cutting bill over President Hoover’s veto is subsiding, and we are moving into the more sober secondary stage.

While there is still interested discussion as to the merits and probable consequences of the measure, which debates in the press and on the platform will tend to keep alive, the general tendency seems to be toward suspended judgment.

The poll conducted by the daily press, mostly among businessmen, reveals complacence on the part of some and resignation, in lieu of the hope of anything better, on the part of others. A few, however, openly voice their dissatisfaction and apprehension and seem disposed to risk everything in an effort to avert the “slow strangulation,” the “creeping paralysis,” which they see as the inevitable outcome of the bill’s operation.

Meanwhile, in diametrical opposition, in apparently uncompromising antagonism dominating the welter of discussion and dissidence, are the well known views of the members of the mission in the United States, with Osmeña and Roxas in the forefront, and, here, Manuel Quezon. On neither side has there been the slightest sign of wavering, of change, of yielding.

For those who believe with Quezon, that there is hope of something better, the argument appears to run about as follows:

That the executive heads of the United States government, reference being had to President Hoover and four members of his cabinet, definitely opposed the bill; that in its essence it is unqualifiedly one-sided and arbitrary; that it was promoted by selfish and sordid interests; that the press of the United States generally condemns it; that it works a great moral and material wrong upon the Filipino people, gives the lie to the past lofty professions of the United States about being animated solely by motives of altruism in its dealings with the Filipino people and generally reflects dishonor upon the good name of America; and further, that it is inconceivable, if the worst came to the worst, that, with a whole people protesting against the injustice of the bill, the congress of the United States would be so cruel and inhuman as to force upon that people a bill still more drastic and merciless in its provisions.

On the other hand, apart from those who welcome the bill because of its more or less definite promise of independence, fear exists lest congress might be ruthless enough to enact a still more stringent measure. These advocates of acceptance say there is no telling what congress might do. Some Americans even go so far as to voice the belief that, should Quezon declare the Filipino people would prefer immediate and outright independence to the present bill, congress might—to use their words—“call his bluff” and pass such a bill. Better, they say, to take half a loaf than risk getting none.

Thus is the issue presented to the Filipino people, to the people of the Philippines. They stand at the crossroads of destiny, at a crisis in their history. Through their legislature or through a popular convention, they are to be called upon to play the part of the Lords of High Decision. Fate hangs in the balance.

Committee Thrashing Out Details of Independence, December 24, 1932

December 24, 1932

Committee Thrashing Out Details of Independence
Hawes-Cutting Bill Approved by Senate—Goes to Conference with Hare Bill—Manila Rises Against Senate Measure

IN ONE of the commodious committee rooms in the capital building in Washington, D.C., at 10 o’clock on Wednesday morning, a group of five senators and three representatives sat down around a large conference table.

Before each member of the joint committee lay printed copies of two bills: one entitled S. 3377; the other, H. R. 7233. Popularly known as the Hawes-Cutting and the Hare bills, they were the measures which the United States senate and the United States house of representatives, respectively, had passed as Philippine independence bills.

Basically following the same broad outlines, these two bills varied in certain essential details. To compromise those differences and report out a single measure which would be acceptable to both houses was the task before the joint committee, as it settled down to work Wednesday morning. Briefly, those differences were:

How soon the joint committee can finish its task of ironing out those discrepancies was much in doubt as the eight congressmen buckled down to the task at hand. Senator Hawes, chief independence proponent in the upper house, was anxious to get a measure approved before December 25, as a Christmas present for the Filipino people. But with the traditional recess of congress over the holidays only a day or two off, it looked as though there were little hope of final action before January.

But if congress must adjourn, there was no reason why the committee could not continue its deliberations during the holidays.

Members of the committee, for the most part, are well-known in the Philippines.

Representing the upper house are Senators Hawes and Cutting, co-authors of the bill, Sen. Hiram Bingham, long-time opponent of independence, Sen. Hiram Johnson, who wants to exclude Filipinos from the United States, and Sen. Key Pittman, generally regarded as a friend of the Philippines.

From the lower house are Representative Hare, author of the independence bill bearing his name, Rep. Guinn Williams, from Texas, an unknown quantity in Philippine matters but certainly in favor of early independence, and Rep. Harold Knutson, whose Minnesota constituents are clamoring for independence in order to shut out Philippine coconut oil, which competes with their dairy products.

The question of Philippine independence was thrown into committee when the senate, last Saturday, passed the amended Hawes-Cutting bill without a record vote, after having reconsidered and disapproved the Broussard amendment which provided for independence in eight years with increasing tariffs beginning the first year. The bill as passed by the senate provides for independence in approximately 12 years, with restricted imports during the first seven years and gradually increasing tariff duties during the final five year.

As a matter of form, the house of representatives then disapproved the senate amendments to the bill, thus throwing both the senate bill and the house bill, which was passed last spring, into committee. That the compromise measure which emerges from that committee will be approved by both houses and sent to President Hoover seems probable. But what President Hoover will do with the bill is anybody’s guess.

Plebiscite Provision

Most controversial matter during the final discussion of the Hawes-Cutting bill was the question of a plebiscite. It is generally felt that President Hoover wants no independence bill without a plebiscite, which will allow the Philippine voters to decide, after a period of transition, whether or not they wish to be cut loose from the United States.

But Sen. Huey P. Long, self-styled Kingfish of Louisiana, who had forced through lower limitations on sugar and coconut oil, rose in his majesty and said he would filibuster until March 4 to prevent the plebiscite proviso. As a final compromise it was provided that the constitution of the Philippine commonwealth should be submitted to the people for a vote, thus allowing them to express their opinion before the period of transition.

From Manila, after the approval of the Hawes-Cutting bill, came an almost unanimous storm of protest. Said Senate President Quezon.

“While they insist upon keeping us under the American flag for a number of years our people are branded as undesirable to the American people. They want to restrict our free trade with America to a ruinous extent, and yet American free trade with the Philippines will be unlimited. Our industries will not be protected in the United States markets but American industries will be protected in the Philippines.

Wants Independence

“It is a most unfair arrangement reminding one of the treatment accorded to the American colonies by Great Britain in the days of George the Third.
“America should grant independence to the Philippines at once, or if Americans insist upon a period of transition then let it be the shortest possible time. If in the meanwhile, America does not want our people in the United States nor our products, let there be no intermigration of the two peoples nor free trade at all. Let Congress prohibit Filipinos from entering the United States and impose customs duties on Philippine products. But let the Filipinos have the right to do the same thing in reference to the United States.

“We did not ask Congress to establish this free trade, and we are willing to have it terminated now. We only ask independence.”

William H. Anderson fairly represented the opinion of America businessmen in Manila when he said, “Better have independence tomorrow than 10 years of slow torture by economic strangulation.”

Mass Meeting

A more conservative note came from the University of the Philippines, where President Rafael Palma pointed out that the Philippines could not expect an ideal independence bill and Dean Francisco Benitez declared that “beggars cannot be choosers.” Dean Maximo Kalaw caustically remarked that the “unfair commercial provisions” had “not surprised” him as he had “always contended that the history of our tariff relations with the United States showed that America has not been actuated by liberal motives.”

The climax of the protest was scheduled for Thursday evening, when a public mass meeting was held at the Manila Opera House. Organized under the chairmanship of Dean Jorge Bocobo, the meeting was first to have been addressed by Senate President Quezon, but later the Filipino leader withdrew, stating his stand on the matter was clear and declaring he was anxious the people themselves should be given an opportunity to express their views.

A resolution of protest was prepared for the meeting, and the program included speeches by Sen. Jose Generoso, Gonzalo Puyat, Lope K. Santos and Isauro Gabaldon.