COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

to call the present act in that respect as one containing imperfecti and inequalities. I think we are creating a philosophy and a psych ogy that is not quite fair in the circumstances.

Mr. SAYRE. As to that, Senator, I suppose there are all kinds very widely differing opinions, and perhaps you are right. think

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). So you will see what I mean, might illustrate by stating that there was a considerable body thought in both Houses that wanted to give the Filipinos indeper ence in 1 year. There was another considerable body of thought th wanted to give them independence quicker, more quickly, than time provided. There were still other groups who wanted to g them independence in 1946, assuming that the tariff obligations wo fall with more speed than they are falling. And out of those c flicting interests, as you yourself know, this general law, which w the best reconciliation of all those conflicts of opinion we could g was developed, and I can't help but feel, therefore, that to say t the present act contains inequalities and imperfections isn't quite t according to the definition of those two words as we understand the and the only reason I bring this up is that I don't want the Filip press and the American press to get the idea that in passing the fi act that Congress thought it was passing an act filled with imp fections and inequalities, because that would be unfair to both si and all parties concerned.

Senator PITTMAN. May I interrupt and add something along t line?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator PITTMAN. And that is, that there was still another sch of thought that did not think it would be wise to ever separate United States and the Philippines. And at that time the dist guished Vice President of the Philippine Islands, Senor Osmena, here working 2 years, and I think that he and Mr. Roxas-the Pr dent was not here at that time; he came into the picture later-I th that they felt that it was just about as fair a compromise as could work out after 20 years of attempts.

Mr. SAYRE. May we not put the matter this way, SenatorThe CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let me make one concluding s tence, and then I won't interrupt you any more.

Mr. SAYRE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if we consent to liberalize the p visions of the Independence Act, it will be a gratuitous gesture our part without, in any sense, direct or indirect, implied or pressed, being an obligation on our part to do it, and it will be cause of many circumstances that we need not mention; but I would feel that it would be fair to leave the press of both nations un the impression that we were correcting this act because of any perfections or inequalities in the original act. It was the very b we could get to meet the conflicting viewpoints of both nations.

Mr. SAYRE. I wonder, sir, whether the truth of the matter is this, that the United States Government wants to do the fair square thing?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. SAYRE. It wants to give to the Philippines their independe in a way which will not prove unnecessarily injurious to them.

seeking to do that fair and square thing, we are suggestin bill here to correct some of the provisions of the TydingsAct, in response to that feeling of justice and fair dealing know is one of the outstanding qualities of the American pe

Senator HAYDEN. Is it not possible to do that very thing the same time act to the advantage of the United States with to our trade with the Philippines? It seems to me that would the Filipinos suffer economic losses by a strict carry of the provisions of the existing law, but from the investigat I myself made, and the committee followed, after its enac think it was, there was a very definite conclusion arrived our own country would suffer in an economic way by a fa be more liberal in the dealings we had with the Philippines future.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sayre, there is one more observation would like to make, making it for myself, but probably a grea other members of the committee would agree with it. May would not. But Senator Vandenberg asked a question a ago to the effect that if 1946 came around, or we approach 194 would we know that there wouldn't be a movement for still Filipino bill-and as far as I am concerned, and I believe many of the committee agree with me, I am definitely of the that whatever act, if any, we pass this time will be the last And as long as I am here I am not going to look with any favo constantly whittling down what is after all the best agreement reach.

Mr. SAYRE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And I wouldn't want anybody to go away the idea that we are going to deal still more liberally wit matter later on, at least insofar as I am concerned.

Mr. SAYRE. Ás to that, Senator, I wonder if this bill doesn't constitute the answer. Under this bill, you will remember, the dent is authorized to enter into an executive agreement wit Philippine government, an independent government. That tive agreement will have all the force of a binding treaty, whic sign, seal, and deliver the rights on both sides, so to speak, until sides agree to abrogate or modify it or until it expires.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it a fact, isn't it your belief, Mr. Sayre even if this act were not amended in the slightest particular, insofar as we know, the Filipinos would rather have it with its dire prospects and possibilities, than they would to go ba the old status?

Mr. SAYRE. That is a question, sir, which I am unable to ar because I don't know. President Quezon has never answered question to me, so I am in ignorance as to the answer.

The CHAIRMAN. At least silence seems to be assent when the cepted it and have gone along all these years.

Mr. SAYRE. They accepted it, yet on the other hand Presi Quezon, as I know, has been very eager to reach some kin an adjustment.

The CHAIRMAN. Naturally; but we have not received the sligh intimation that if it can't be reached, he would prefer to go bac the old status. In other words, assuming that the act is not in respects like Mr. Quezon would like to have it, which is understa

able and pardonable, wouldn't he, insofar as our Government concerned, officially, rather have the act as it is now, without a sing amendment, than to have no Independence Act at all?

Mr. SAYRE. That is a question of course which I can't answer, s Senator VANDENBERG. Well, Dr. Sayre, getting back, if we ma to my question, let me ask you this. Suppose you were still writin reciprocal trade agreements in 1947-it is probably a violent assum tion-[laughter]-but let's say that you were. Could you invade th act with a reciprocal trade agreement and change it?

Mr. SAYRE. Could I do what to the act?

Senator VANDENBERG. Could you invade the terms of this new a and amend it further with a reciprocal trade agreement?

Mr. SAYRE. After the Philippines have become independent, course, the way is open to make a new trade agreement with t Philippines. They would be like any other country. But in t way of doing so would stand an existing agreement such as is pr vided for under S. 1028. Before abrogating that it would be nece sary, naturally, to secure the consent of the Filipino people, of t Flipino government rather; if that should take place and if bo countries saw it to be to their mutual advantage, it would be possib to make a trade agreement under the existing Trade Agreement A Now understand, please, that that new trade agreement would ha to conform to all the provisions of the existing Trade Agreement A I don't think there is any room for conflict there, Senator.

Possibly I am not getting at what is troubling you in your mind? Senator VANDENBERG. What I want to know specifically is when y get around to 1947, suppose it is decided that some additional le

way

Mr. SAYRE (interposing). When some better man than I am ge around to 1947.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, if you were in charge I am sure y would be in favor of more leeway. [Laughter.]

If that were the objective, could it not be reached under the Tra Agreement Act, assuming that act is still in force?

Mr. SAYRE. In general terms, we could make a trade agreement wi the independent Philippine government in the same way, and accor ing to exactly the same limits as with any other foreign governme Senator VANDENBERG. You mean you could abate these rates a other 50 percent?

Mr. SAYRE. No; we couldn't replace the existing executive agre ment with a trade agreement except with the full concurrence of t Commonwealth government and under the terms of the Trade Agre ment Act.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not so sure you are constitutionally sound that. This act is passed subsequent to the Trade Agreement Act, a it would be a question for the courts before you could proceed, in n judgment, as to whether or not it didn't take precedence in this o particular over the Trade Agreement Act.

Mr. SAYRE. But where is the conflict?

The CHAIRMAN. We could write a provision in this act certain to prevent the Trade Agreement Act having jurisdiction in the fie in which Congress has already legislated.

Mr. SAYRE. But where is the conflict, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. We passed the Trade Agreement Act seve ago. We are passing this act now, and therefore, from th point of priority, this act would take precedence, being mor over the Trade Agreement Act.

The CHAIRMAN. And therefore, having especially legisl this, the courts would give the Congress the intent to nullify as it invaded the general act

Mr. SAYRE (interposing). Precisely; and I would emphasi last words, insofar as it invaded or is in conflict with the of I don't see any conflict.

The CHAIRMAN. I doubt very much whether the Trade Ag Act would be broad enough to satisfy the subsequent particu Mr. SAYRE. Please understand me, I am in entire agreeme you on the question of constitutional law. A later act unquest supersedes any prior act with which it conflicts.

The CHAIRMAN. You couldn't change sugar, but you might tomatoes, or something that is not mentioned in the act.

Mr. SAYRE. As I think over the commodities, I can't see there is any conflict or invasion of the former act by the latte I am in entire agreement with you on the question of constit law.

The CHAIRMAN. We ought to write a provision in here to ma that whatever act we pass, if any, has a provision in there to p further tampering with this thing after we decide it.

Mr. SAYRE. Of course, it is certainly within the power of Co to do so if it sees fit. But if it does so, it is to that extent li its bargaining power to secure further reductions in the Phil tariff against American exports. If Congress wants to writ this act that it shall not enter into tariff bargaining with the pine nation, as it does with other nations, it is within its po do so; but it thereby limits its bargaining power and prevents by a kind of self-denying ordinance, from securing a reducti Philippine trade barriers against American exports.

The CHAIRMAN. What we are discussing here is this, that would be no use at all in us passing this act if, in 1946, or whe Congress sees fit to declare the Philippines absolutely free ar dependent, there would be no use in us fixing the future if at time there is going to be a new agreement made by treaty wi even reference to Congress. Now, I am not contending here ag reciprocal tariff treaties at all, but I don't see any point in us t to work out a system to cushion Filipino independence on th hand and have in existence an act which is going to undo all tha may set up on the other. And I think, if we are going this far, the Filipinos ought to be put on notice to take their choice of tiating a reciprocal trade treaty under this act on the one han taking the act as we write it on the other, and not have the opti both.

Senator KING. I do not quite assent to the very learned expos just made by the chairman of the committee. I am inclined to view that the general reciprocal trade laws, denominated laws, w supersede this, and unless we especially and particularly_made reciprocal trade-agreement law inapplicable to the Philip Islands, that the power would still rest in the Government to n

eral years he standre recent,

ated for 7 insofar

ze those

her act.

reement lar act. nt with ionably

change

where . But tional

e sure clude

gress

iting

opine

into

ilip

-r to

self,

a of

here

ver

in

hat

out

nst

ng

ne

ve

at

r

-f

COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

tiate a trade agreement with the Philippine Islands, just the same with Great Britain or France or any other country.

Mr. SAYRE. It seems so to me, sir, because there is no conflict b tween the Trade Agreement Act and S. 1028. That is a matt which I would be very glad to have some of our legal experts_r down and if you like, Senator, I will be glad to confer with you lat about this.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection to them running it down, b that wouldn't be conclusive, of course. [Laughter.]

The point I make here is that Congress, after the passage of t Trade Agreement Act, specifically provides up to 1960 for a scher of reciprocity, and having provided that scheme of reciprocity, it b comes a congressional exception which no treaty can offset witho being ratified by the United States Senate.

Senator VANDENBERG. I didn't intend to turn the lawyers loose that, by my question.

Entirely aside from the legal aspect, I want to know about t ethical, equity_aspect?

Mr. SAYRE. Yes.

Senator VANDENBERG. Do you contend that after we have, if y do, fixed this new arrangement, that the back door should still I open for a further rearrangement by Executive decree under t Trade Agreement Act?

Mr. SAYRE. I don't know what you mean by an "Executive d cree," sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. Well, an Executive treaty, or whatever yo call it. I am sure I don't know what to call them. [Laughter.]

Mr. SAYRE. I think this. It would be too bad for the Unite States Government to rob itself of that power of bargaining dow barriers against American exports, and also rob itself of the pow to secure American exports from discriminatory treatment in fo eign markets. Therefore, I should hope that it would still be po sible, if we found in the future that, shall we say the Philippi Government were discriminating against American goods, we wou be at liberty to bargain with the Philippines and say, "Well, if yo will cut out your discriminations against American goods, if y will give us equality of treatment, we will give you equality of trea ment on our side."

I think it is important not to rob ourselves of that power. Ma ifestly the United States is not going to make concessions unless gets concessions in return.

Senator VANDENBERG. Isn't there anything in this pending act th guarantees us equality of treatment while the act is in force? Ha we got to have some more protection?

Mr. SAYRE. Offhand, I think of no provision in this bill guara teeing equality of treatment, on either side. In fact, the bill is base on reciprocal preferences. (After a pause.) I am advised that tl only provision in the bill with respect to this matter is that, in vie of the assurance given to us, for instance, of preferences in t Philippine markets, the Filipino Government could not reduce tho preferences. That is confessedly a temporary arrangement, and 1960, we will be on the basis of full equality-I mean of full ec nomic independence and freedom from preferences on both side Then the Philippines will be like any other government; and