organized the National Association of American Seamen. During that time I testified before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, on the Bland bill, and that was passed. I testified before Congressman Dickstein's committee on two different occasions, and I had several Nazis fired for activities on United States vessels. I testified before Senator Black's air-mail and ship-subsidy committee and supplied Senator Black with specific information, and during the mail investigation I supplied valuable information to the United States district attorney in the southern district of New York.

All during 1933 and 1934 it was I who fought for a code for the American seamen and had it put into effect. There were six charter members under the N. R. A. and I happened to be one of the six. I have clippings and letters here from the N. R. A. from Mr. Roosevelt, and so on and so forth, with regard to a hearing for the American seamen. Finally we got a hearing and the code was passed.

Senator MALONEY. What is your present position?

Mr. SMITH. I am unemployed. I cannot make a ship on account of the National Maritime Union. When Mr. Curran came off the California I happened to have a little article in the Journal which they pushed a little further and said it was a Communist move to get control of the International Seamen's Union

Senator MALONEY. What organization do you belong to now? Mr. SMITH. My organization is still in existence, the National Association of American Seamen.

Senator DONAHEY. What is its numerical strength?

Mr. SMITH. Right now we have not very many members. They cannot make a job on a ship unless they join the National Maritime Union or the International Seamen's Union.

Senator MALONEY. Are you associated with the C. I. O. now?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator MALONEY. Are you at odds with the C. I. O.?

Mr. SMITH. Not exactly. I am not at odds with anybody right now. Senator MALONEY. Are they at odds with you?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I can't make a job. I was told they would blackball me for 99 years on account of giving Mr. Curran a blast in this paper in 1936.

Senator MALONEY. What did you say about Mr. Curran?

Mr. SMITH. I didn't say a thing about him, only what the Journal put in there that it was a Communist move.

Senator MALONEY. Did you charge him with communism, or does he charge you with it?

Mr. SMITH. No; I did not charge him at all. I said it was a Communist move to get control of the union. I based my statement on a letter I received from the secretary of the Marine Workers' Industrial Union, a Communist organization.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he tell you?

Mr. SMITH. He wanted to send representatives to our union at that time, to have something to say to our members.

The CHAIRMAN. This organization was a communistic organization?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; it is the Maritime Council of the city of New York, comprised of licensed officers, radio operators, and so forth.

I cannot make a ship, and the shipowners are just as much guilty as the others. They told me, "I don't want you." I asked why. They said, "You are always starting investigations."

I started an investigation down at the water front when they were issuing false tickets. They say, "You are an agitator."

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there is communism on the ships? Mr. SMITH. To a certain extent there is. I will not say what the percentage is, but there is communism, to a certain extent.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to a dangerous extent?

Mr. SMITH. I would not say to a dangerous extent. Shipowners recognize the International Seamen's Union. The men join the I. S. U. I have heard it in New York, San Francisco, San Pedro, in practically every big company in America, the Dollar Line, the Panama-Pacific Line, the Munson Line

The CHAIRMAN. What did it mean to you?
Mr. SMITH. It did not mean much to me.

The CHAIRMAN. I know; but what was the significance of it? If you have information about communism, give it to the committee. Mr. SMITH. I did turn over whatever information I had on Nazis and Communists, and so forth, to Mr. Dickstein about 4 years ago. As far as fighting them, I am not fighting them, Senator. It is just a case of my explaining my views. I cannot go and make a job for the simple reason that they say, "You are working with the ship

owners.

When we organized our organization we charged $1 a year. They charge $10 today.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Smith, we have had the background. What have you to say about this bill?

Mr. SMITH. About this bill, Senator, I have a letter here dated June 28, 1933, from the New York State Merchant Marine Academy. I think, Senator, that one of the finest things that could be done is to build a merchant-marine academy operated by the Maritime Commission or whatever department they see fit to operate it, to take youths and put them on ships and train them, like you send boys out into the C. C. C. camps. It is only a matter of time; it may be 2 years or 5 years, when war may come. During the last war I sailed in the Army transport service. War has got to come sooner or later. Why not be prepared? The Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for ships. Why not have trained crews, civilized

crews?

It has only been since 1934 that the new seamen's certificates came into effect, whereby aliens with a 3 years' certificate can sail on United States subsidized vessels as citizens. Most of them came down and got their certificates. Along came the "fink" book, and they got that. Then along came another ruling, and they got certificates. I have certificates now, but I cannot make a job.

Senator MALONEY. Are you a seaman?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. I have sailed for probably every company in America.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not have a job because you do not belong to the union?

Mr. SMITH. I can't join the union. They say I am a radical, that I am working with the shipowners. They accuse me of everything under the sun.

.

The CHAIRMAN. You have my deep sympathy.

Mr. SMITH. I can prove by records that I spent $4,000 out of my own money coming to Washington and sending telegrams, out of my own pocket. Why? For one purpose: to see that we have United

States citizens aboard United States mail subsidized vessels.
The CHAIRMAN. Did we not do pretty well in our law?
Mr. SMITH. It is very good.

The CHAIRMAN. The freighters have crews that are 100 percent American?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Seventy-five to 85 percent right now; 100 percent on deck and 75 percent in the stewards' department right now. The CHAIRMAN. Then we have done something?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And so have some others.

Mr. SMITH. Now, getting down to this bill, Senator-
The CHAIRMAN. What about this bill?

Mr. SMITH. The same thing as the mediation bill they had last year or the year before. I think a bill of that sort would be all right to a certain extent, if the unions and the Government should have an equal amount of representation, with the President of the United States appointing an arbitrator, an honest man. There should not be any trouble on ships. The men are getting more money than they ever got before. The food is lousy on some ships. I have been in the glory hole with the steward on several ships, but it is getting to a point now where they are remodeling the ships and putting in new quarters, new mattresses, new blankets. The shipowners are hollering that they have not any money, but they can get the money; they can cut down their overhead on the docks. They pay too big dividends. The CHAIRMAN. Now, tell us about the bill. Do you think it is pretty good bill?

a

Mr. SMITH. The bill, as is outside of a few changes, the bill itself is not a bad bill, providing labor gets an equal break in representation. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your testimony. Is there anything else you want to say?

Mr. SMITH. That is all, Senator.

(The witness withdrew from the committee table.)

STATEMENT OF DR. B. M. GANCY, DIRECTOR OF THE FILIPINO LEAGUE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name to the reporter, please.

Dr. GANCY. B. M. Gancy, director of the Filipino League for Social Justice, with national headquarters here in Washington.

I did not come here to make any complaints about the present bill as it is. It is not my province to say anything about the bill, although I am a very attentive listener at the present hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been a very patient one, because you have been present at all of our hearings.

Dr. GANCY. Yes, Senator. I have a very serious problem for my people. I am really grateful for the privilege that you have accorded me today. I came here as a Filipino citizen and as a subject of the United States, and also as director of the Filipino League for Social Justice, a national organization of Filipinos in the United States and in the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska.

The Filipino League for Social Justice was formed almost 3 years after the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act, better known today as the Philippine independence law.

The CHAIRMAN. You may recall that I was opposed to that bill.

Dr. GANCY. I am glad you were, Senator. Thank you for the information.

The CHAIRMAN. I was all alone in my opposition.

Dr. GANCY. I hope you are not alone now.

The CHAIRMAN. I could not get anybody to even second the motion. Dr. GANCY. The history of that law is undoubtedly familiar to all of you and the history of the Filipinos' plea for freedom is likewise a very familiar cause among members of both Houses of Congress. The Filipinos, as you very well know, have come before Congress for almost two decades, pleading for the fulfillment of the covenant entered into by the people of the United States and the Philippine Islands, promising the Filipinos their independence as soon as the establishment of a stable government became a reality in the Philippines.

To all these pleadings by Filipino leaders who have come to Congress you have all been extremely kind and exceptionally receptive. As a consequence, Congress on August 29, 1916, wrote into the law bill sponsored by the late Congressman William A. Jones of Virginia, giving the Filipinos the first major test of their ability to run and manage an autonomous form of political government. The passage, however, of that act did not lay to rest the incessant agitation of race and party antagonism of the Philippine problems.

Year in and year out, Filipino missions came to Washington and appeared before Congress pleading for the complete freedom of the Filipino people, as promised by successive American administrators and morally supported by successive Congresses. If some Filipino missions in some fashion have become nuisances to Congress because of their many demands for immediate Philippine emancipation, the Members of this Congress and of past Congresses have listened to all of them most patiently and in many instances patronizingly.

In March 1934, Congress passed the historic Tydings-McDuffie law, writing the final chapter in the statute books of Philippine-American relations the provisions designed for the final termination of American stewardship over the Philippines. That law, as you very well know, gentlemen of the committee, received the overwhelming approval of the Filipino people at that time. Into that law was written the provisions which have today become the basis of grave social and labor problems of Filipinos residing in the United States and the Territories. It is not my intention, gentlemen of the committee, to criticize here, that provision of the independence law which placed my people in the category of aliens in this country, because that section only pertains to and affects Filipinos who wish to enter the United States, or affects Filipinos in the United States who wish to become naturalized citizens But I say to you, gentlemen of the committee, that I do criticize the leaders of the Philippine Government for their lack of foresight and. their lack of interest in making adequate provisions in behalf of thousands of Filipinos residing in the United States and in the territories of Hawaii and Alaska, when the Tydings-McDuffie Act was being drafted.

Senator MALONEY. May I interrupt you there?

Dr. GANCY. Yes.

Senator MALONEY. Are you going to discuss this bill in your statement?

Dr. GANCY. I am not especially discussing the bill, Senator. I am merely giving the basis of why the problems of the Filipinos at present

are so acute.

Senator MALONEY. I wonder if it would satisfy your purpose to just put your statement in the record, if it does not concern this bill. Dr. GANCY. It does concern it very intimately, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, Senator, the Filipinos are denied inclusion in the crews. That is the point, is it not?

Dr. GANCY. Yes. It is very brief, Senator, I assure you.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, though, that you might put your background and legal interpretation in the record, because there are only two or three of us here, and then present your argument for inclusion in the record. We will print it as if you had read it all.

Dr. GANCY. All right; but I would like to just finish this paragraph, if I may, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Dr. GANCY. I criticise them for their failure to reasonably provide for my compatriots in the United States and in the Territories with some legislative proposals or plans to afford our thousands of expatriates in this country an opportunity to readjust themselves in the changed political relationship, at least during the transition period provided for in the Tydings-McDuffie Act.

If such a provision or such a plan was made a part of the intimate consideration of the whole Philippine-American relations, there would have been no need for my appearance before you today. There would have been no problem, except the ordinary problems which attach to ordinary members of a community. There would have been no need for me to plead before this committee and before the American people to grant the Filipinos in the United States and the Territories, an opportunity for an orderly readjustment of their labor and social privileges.

Had provisions been made for these orderly processes of social and labor readjustments, the Filipino League for Social Justice would not have come into being.

My appearance before this committee was the outcome of many factors which contributed to the acceptance of that ill-conceived independence plan. That plan, gentlemen of the committee, was the result of the over-hasty desire of our ambitious leaders to bring home something which looked like freedom in order to please our hysterical mob in the Philippines which at that time dominated Philippine politics.

It follows therefore that since the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie law, a succession of events transpired, all tending toward the complete relinquishment of all legal and moral responsibility of the people of the United States insofar as it affects the status and well-being of Filipinos in the United States and the Territories.

Among these, the passage of the Emergency Appropriation Act of 1937, giving preference to American citizens only, affected about 3,000 Filipinos in the United States alone. Today their position is desperate.

Many Filipino industrial workers are also being discriminated against because of the misinterpretation of that particular section of the Tydings-McDuffie law classing Filipinos as aliens even if that law is only for purposes of immigration.