ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Mr. FAKLER. Well, the obvious answer to that, Senator, might be “No,” but that is a temporary and emergency measure and we don't know whether it is going to be continued.

Senator VANDENBERG. That is right; you certainly don't.

Mr. FAKLER. As I say, we favor the objectives of the bill now before your committee which is to eliminate the preferential treatment gradually, and we favor the negotiation of a trade agreement between the Philippine Islands and the United States providing for continued preferential treatment of the products of the respective countries.

We believe the gradual elimination of the preference is desirable as compared with the abrupt cut-off provided for in the basic act. However, we feel that it would be preferable to fix a definite preferential for a fixed period. We feel that the gradual stepping up of the duty over a period of years would not accomplish the desired objective. In other words, after the duty reaches a certain percentage, you might as well put it on a 100-percent basis. Therefore we would favor the negotiation of a trade agreement under which a fixed preferential would

be granted for both Philippine and American products for a specified period. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Zerda.

STATEMENT OF V. M. F. ZERDA, ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ZERDA. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to endorse the bill, s. 1028, as recommended by the State Department and by the Philippine Commission headed by the Vice President, Hon. Sergio Osmena, and a strong consideration of Commissioner Elizalde's statements on page 10 of his statement, and Mr. Leuterio's proposed amendment.

My name is V. M. Zerda.
Senator VANDENBERG. Who do you speak for?

Mr. ZERDA. For myself and for Filipinos who might be in the same relation as I am in respect to the Philippines.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have before you a bill to reconsider the Tydings-McDuffie law as it pertains to the economic provision therein provided.

You have heard various recommendations from elements in the United States and the Philippines opposing the bill. While it is true that inequalities and omissions in the independence law should have been corrected, yet it is also a verity that man never realizes, though the heavens show a sign of rain formation, that it is going to rain. And, in some instances, necessity precedes demand.

Now our necessity impels us to beseech you your humane and sympathetic attitude toward our cause.

First of all, since the hearings began on the bill (S. 1028) for the reexamination and revision of the economic provision, it was my privilege to be able to listen to testimonies against the proposed bill and remarks and motions to include a paragraph as an amendment to and incorporate with the Senate bill 1028 together with its attendant supporting reasons for adoption by this committee. Then there were so-called patriotic American and Filipino activities related with industries of a diversified kind appearing in paraphernalia of a true, honest-to-goodness citizen of the United States and the Philippines, trying to make a living out of others' miseries and unwisdom and convincing this committee that Filipino sugar is detrimental to the interests of American farmers and producers, stating facts and figures in support of their argument, that Filipino coconut oil is displacing cottonseed oil and will displace that product unless proper measures are taken to curtail Philippine products from coming into this country, duty-free. These interests, corporate or noncorporate, represented by individuals of pseudo-patriotic activities, are not legitimately interested in the welfare of human beings as such but as a medium of exchange in terms of dollars and cents. Furthermore, some groups have gone to the extent of trying to define refined sugar in their own way, showing before this committee that Filipino sugar, as defined by the Filipino, was inaccurate and intended to deceive; that Filipino industries and products, unless blocked by high tariff, would destroy the sugar-refining industry, oleomargarine production, and beet-sugar production. That all these mutual trade relations between the two countries should have a high wall between them, or the Filipinos will control the industries in sugar refining, substitute butter, and soapmaking; that unemployment in America will increase by the millions, that-in a word-we do not need the Filipino goods.

Mr. Loomis, representative of the Domestic Fats and Oils Conference, had intimated that the United States could probably get along without Philippine coconut oil because there are enough vegetable oils and animal fats to provide for the manufacture of soaps, oleomargarine, and other food products which have coconut ingredients in them. I do not see how it is possible when present scientific tests have proved that, for example, soaps made out of fats alone are brittle and would not lather in hard water.

Mr. Loomis also intimated that executive agreement after independence would be the object of international suspicion as still maintaining control over the Philippines. Well, why not? Why should the United States mind what other people say about her colonies as long as she is doing all she can to forward her paternal benefits of interest in the Philippines?

Then Mr. Carpenter, representative of the United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association, had the audacity to state before this committee that the definition of refined sugar by the Filipino delegation was inaccurate and intended to deceive.

He said that Mr. Osmeña's proposed definition of refined sugar as "Any sugar manufactured by a recognized remelting and recrystallizing process, having a polarization of more than 99.8° was fallacious because it then intended to include as raw, all

sugar polarizing 99.8° or less, regardless of how manufactured.

But this definition was not made by Mr. Osmeña. Nor is it Mr. Osineña's idea. I believe that he borrowed that definition of refined sugars from the State Department. However, the Federal Government itself has not defined "refined sugar," but it has as to "raw sugars" (U. S. C. A., title 7, sec. 609). And the definition is apparently left to the quasi-judicial body to define the term "refined sugars” (Barlow v. U.S., 7 Pet. 404; American Sugar Refining Co. v. U. S., 211 U. S. 155; Holbrook Grocery Co. v. Armstrong, 122 A. 458; Two Hundred Chests of Tea, Smith, Claimant, 9 Wheaton, 438).

[ocr errors]

beet sugar,

ter.]

Mr. Osmeña definition was approved by the Interdepartmental Committee on Insular Affairs. However, Mr. Carpenter, when asked if he would offer a definition, said, “We do not."

Mr. George M. Rolph in his book, Something About Sugar, 1917, Taylor & Taylor, San Francisco, Calif., says:

Having a polarization of 99.8° (sugar as defined by Mr. Osmeña) cannot possibly include raw (because it is 99.8 percent, or degrees) it is almost chemically pure, perfectly white color, hadl, and lustrous grain.

I admit that Mr. Carpenter was correct in one respect-beet sugar, first-grade raw, is almost white and of about 99.5 polarization, but it is not edible or pleasant to the smell.

Senator VANDENBERG. What did you say was the matter with beet sugar? Mr. ZERDA. I admit that Mr. Carpenter was correct in one respect

first-grade raw, is almost white and of about 99.5 polarization, but it is not edible or pleasant to the smell.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do you mean beet sugar is not edible ? [Laughter.]

Mr. ZERDA. That reference, Mr. Senator, I can show you. That is found in Americana, volume 25, page 802, that it is not edible and not pleasant to the smell. That is not my own statement. (Laugh

Senator VANDENBERG. What year was that book printed ?
Mr. ZERDA. 1936, the Americana.

Senator VANDENBERG. Is that so! The book smells worse than the sugar does.

Mr. ZERDA. I don't know. May I continue, sir?
Senator VANDENBERG. Yes, sure.

Mr. ZERDA. By washing with water or sirup in the centrifugals, the almost white color is the result.

I also agree with Mr. Carpenter that white granulated sugar, scarcely distinguishable from refined white sugar, can be made with out the remelting and recrystallizing process by the modern method of carbonation; that is, by adding lime and charging the solution with carbonic acid gas and the process is repeated several times and boiled to a temperature of 80° to 90° C. Centigrade and Fahrenheit degrees are quite different. Therefore, we must not be misled by the former's low figure. However, who knows but that the addition of lime and carbonic gas in the carbonation process might have produced the greatest dental bills that Americans have to pay! Who knows whether the production of white sugar through carbonation is more or less expensive than by the process of remelting and recrystallizing? Mr. Carpenter did not state this in his testimony.

Gentlemen of this honorable and distinguished committee, I say to you that as many as have spoken here have not brought up the vital problem of the day. This problem is the human problem. This problem represents, roughly speaking, 16,000,000 Filipinos and 130,000,000 Americans.

Sixteen million or more Filipinos owing allegiance to the United States. Sixteen million or more of them owing allegiance and taking the oath that they should defend the Constitution of the United States and its principles. Their oath of allegiance, gentlemen, is no different from what every American takes, or is implied to take. But there is one great difference, and I say this without reservationthe Filipino oath of allegiance to the United States is without reservation. The Filipino has no powerful and equally proud country of origin. He gives his whole heart and soul to good and adaptable American ideals, because he is a Malay and congenitally endowed with love of freedom and democracy.

The most sorrowful part of Filipino life in this country comes when he knows that he is not a citizen of the United States and cannot become one, except if he has had over 3 years' service in the United States Naval or Army Corps with honorable discharge. There is no law permitting a Filipino to become a naturalized citizen. The tendency of a Filipino who finds himself not being able to vote or take the bar or medical-board examination in some States is dissatisfaction of American treatment. Gentlemen, here is one human problem for you to consider carefully.

I also heard a testimony here last Thursday that England takes good care of the English anywhere in the four corners of the globe. I happen to know that England takes good care of her colonies, as well. In Parliament, there is a Hindu member elected from the slums of London; that in British Peerage there are many Hindus or Indians. If there is democracy at all it is in England, and small wonder why British colonies are bound by some tie inseparable. What kind of tie is that? It is spiritual and moral and not entirely dependent on economics.

Having been in the auxiliary naval service of the United States, I know what the officers and general crew of the entire armed forces of the United States desire for their follow shipmates and comrades. They like Filipinos because they are clean, sane, and sober, and loyal. In the merchant marine Filipinos are very much liked.

Now, then, gentlemen, you cannot make a soul out of cottonseed oil or beet sugar or other American products to fight for America in case of war. But you can make a Filipino fight, and he will fight bravely and without reservation for the United States. One gain is loss of the other, but a human gain is better than a fleeting gain in dollars and cents.

There was a gentleman who tried to speak of West African labor or products. Gentlemen, it has been my good fortune to have been in practically all of the so-called West Africa. The African laborers can never, and will never, be compared with the Filipinos. Filipino products and Filipino goods cannot and shall not be compared with West African products because the laborers in that part of Africa are terribly underpaid, their requirements for the barest necessities of life are so meager in comparison with ordinary Filipino laborers' necessities. While there may be no sign of manifest slavery, the workers in Africa are under almost regimental control of guns and fear. From French Morocco to Portuguese Angola, the condition is the same. In the Cameroon regions where palm oil is plentiful, you see nothing but plains and plantations. Little villages are populated by white men and the outskirts by the African natives. În Belgian Congo, where you may see the enormous coaling stations and the presence of acute mining activity, the African workers are constantly under the strong hand of a person with a revolver dangling at his side.

There has been a saying that if you can save a soul, nothing else matters. Gentlemen of this honorable and distinguished committee, your just and equitable appraisal of Filipino rights, privileges, and preferences, would save you a great race of people who have already proved to you to be worthy of erecting a monument in the name of American western civilization, in the name of Ferdinand Magellan who introduced to them the great faith of Christianity almost 500 years ago.

Your consideration of our trade policy is not forced upon you, but because nothing else is or can be done by the Federal Government unless there is a law by which it can act, and because we are still a part of your great Nation, your traditions and customs; because whatever we succeed in doing either in the cause of trade, education, commerce, and industry and any other field of human endeavor worthy of a name in history will be attributed to the glory and interest of the United States and its people, we ask you to look again at our problems with equity and justice to ourselves and to the United States as a whole.

MEMORANDUM

CHANGES PROPOSED BY V. M. F. ZERDA, WASHINGTON LAWYER, TO S. 1028

(Note.—The page and line citations refer to the numbered pages and lines of

S. 1028)

1. Section 8, page 16, (a) (1), strike out the word "For" and substitute thereto, “Notwithstanding", and on page 17, line 3, immediately after the word "aliens” add the following:

"Provided, however, That Filipinos who are married to American women and who have continuously lived in the United States before May 1, 1934, shall be admitted to become citizens of the United States without the necessity of filing the declaration of intentions except to file the petitions for naturalization.

"And provided further, That Filipinos who have continually lived in the United States for 5 years after May 1, 1934, may upon petition for naturalization be granted United States citizenship after complying with all other rules and regulations otherwise provided for to complete naturalization procedures.

And provided further, That notwithstanding all other provisions relating to Filipinos subsequent to May 1, 1934, Filipinos who were in the United States and Territories on or before May 1, 1934, shall not be affected thereby, but they shall remain as if they were citizens of the United States."

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Senator PITTMAN. Judge Haussermann, can you go on now?
Mr. HAUSSERMAN. Yes.
Senator PITTMAN. Judge, will you give your name and residence ?

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. HAUSSERMANN, MANILA, P. I.

Mr. HAUSSERMAN. My name is John W. Haussermann, a resident of Manila, P. I. I have lived in the Philippine Islands 40 years last November

I went to the Philippine Islands in 1898 as an officer in the Twentieth Kansas Volunteers; was requested to remain there after that regiment returned home and was made an officer of the Thirty-fourth United States Volunteers when the State regiments returned; was made city attorney when the civil government was established, city attorney for Manila; subsequently made assistant attorney-general of the islands.

« 前へ次へ »