IMMIGRATION SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1931 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Bertrand H. Snell (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. We will continue the hearings in regard to H. J. Res. 473. Mr. Gibson, of Vermont, we will first hear from you, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST W. GIBSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I will be very brief and to the point. My voice is not in a condition this morning to talk very long, fortunately. I am opposed to the bill with the Philippine proposal in it, because it sets up a legal fiction and declares that, for the purpose of enforcement of the immigration laws, the Filipinos shall be regarded as aliens and the Philippine Islands as foreign territory. Now this bill is not favored definitely by any executive department of the Government. The State Department, the Labor Department, and the War Department are the departments more intimately interested in the proposition. It has the definite opposition of the War Department, under which the Bureau of Insular Affairs operates. It does not seem to me there is any need for this legislation, inasmuch as there are only about 55,000 Filipinos in the country, comparatively a small number when we take into consideration our total population. The CHAIRMAN. How many come a year, as a usual thing, at the present time? Mr. GIBSON. Well it varies; but at the present time there are more departing than coming in. In the last two years, more have departed than have come in; that is, more went back to the Philippines. Mr. PURNELL. You are addressing yourself particularly to the Filipino section of the bill and not to the rest of it? Mr. GIBSON. Not to the general proposition; although I will say this, that I can not see any good reason for the general provisions of the bill inasmuch as the State Department is accomplishing everything that could be accomplished through this bill. The State Department, according to the hearings, shows the whole immigration coming into the United States has been reduced 78 per cent. I think it is rather more at the present time, during the last month. The CHAIRMAN. The statement was made the other day it was pretty nearly 98 per cent. Mr. GIBSON. I think the State Department has closed the doors still more during the past month. Mr. PURNELL. I have not read the minority report. Are you against the bill in its entirety? Mr. GIBSON. Probably if the Philippine proposal was out I would support the bill. Mr. THURSTON. I am sure the committee is very much interested in this aspect of the matter. Can you cite to the committee any statutory regulations or any court decisions that would bar the Congress from not permitting persons to go from one section of the country, its insular possessions, to another? Mr. GIBSON. Not from one State to another, or one Territory to another; and it is a fair legal question if we have the power granted to us by the Constitution to pass any act that would keep the Filipinos out. Mr. THURSTON. Have you any legal authorities that would sustain your position that the Congress does not have that authority? Mr. GIBSON. Well, in the case of Sanford v. Dred Scott, the United States Supreme Court held that the sovereignty over any Territory rests in the people of the United States and not in the Congress of the United States. Now it seems to me we are attempting, by shutting the Filipinos out, to alienate temporarily at least our sovereignty over the Philippine Islands. If the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case obtains here, then Congress has not any power, express or implied, to alienate even temporarily the sovereignty of the United States. Mr. BANKHEAD. Colonel, I do not see how the principle of the Dred Scott case would necessarily apply in this proposition, as between the sovereignty of the Government and the status of the Philippines. In that case there was a question involving the rights of the States, purely. Mr. GIBSON. Very true. Mr. BANKHEAD. And not the matter of the respective rights of the sovereign, to wit, the United States, and an insular possession like the Philippines. Mr. GIBSON. Of course the gentleman will bear in mind we have gone a bit farther in the Philippines than to impress our sovereignty over the territory, because we have set up a government there with three departments, judicial, executive, and legislative; we have extended to the Philippine Islands certain guarantees of our Constitution, namely, prohibition of any ex post facto laws, or bills of attainder, and we have guaranteed those people the right to life, liberty, and the possession of property. So that we have gone a bit farther than to implant our sovereignty upon the territory itself, by impressing those people into our political system. The gentleman will also bear in mind that we require of officials of the Philippine Government to take an oath of allegiance to the United States that they will bear true faith to the Constitution of the United States; we grant passports to the Filipinos with all the protection we have thrown around Americans traveling abroad. So that we have gone further than to impress sovereignty on the Territory alone. Mr. FORT. Has it not been held somewhere that the Philippines and Porto Rico are part of the territory of the United States, but are not Territories? Is not there a ruling to that effect? Mr. FREE. If the gentleman will yield, Chief Justice Taft————— The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, it seems to me we are getting into something that is not necessary to bring up here-a debate and discussion on the constitutional rights. If we go into that, we will be here for months. Now, let us confine ourselves to whether this matter is important enough to be taken onto the floor of the House. This question of the constitutional rights and all that, if we get into it, we will be here for weeks, and I think we had better leave that out and confine ourselves to a general statement as to whether we shall take this bill to the floor of the House for consideration at this time. Mr. FREE. If I may be pardoned, I happen to have with me two cases that pass on these very things by the Supreme Court. If the committee wants those cases, I will be very glad to submit them. Mr. GIBSON. I think the chairman is absolutely right. It is not the province of this committee to pass on the constitutionality of any act, and I had not intended to go into that. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you did, but it was our own members who brought it up. I think we had better leave that alone for the present and confine ourselves to the question, solely, of whether this should be taken to the floor of the House. Mr. GIBSON. Another objection I have to this bill and the granting of the rule is that it opens up the whole oriental question and will serve to spread distrust of America in the Orient. Without naming any nation, none of us can doubt but that that nation that is struggling to a position of industrial importance will take advantage of this distrust for trade purposes. Our trade with the Philippines in 1928-I think those are the last figures available-amounted to almost $200,000,000. Now it seems to me if we adopt this provision it will serve to increase unemployment, rather than to decrease unemployment; because it will have a tendency to shut out our exportable manufactured products from the Orient. Then another thing: This proposal flirts with the question of independence. It throws into the political arena, at the close of this session of Congress, a question of major political importance, and I sincerely doubt, gentlemen, if we at this time ought to take that matter up. That is a question that should have calm consideration, and we should determine our course according to our best judgment, and I do not think we ought to take it up at this session of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you a question there? Mr. GIBSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You are a member of this committee? Mr. GIBSON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any evidence adduced before your committee that would show there was any real reason for interfering with our immigration from, or emigration to, Canada at this time? Mr. GIBSON. Well, there has been some evidence adduced in hearings throughout this session of Congress. We started out in the committee to report out an immigration bill that would deal with immigration from the countries of the American Continent, and we had some hearings at that time; but there were not hearings, as I understand—and Mr. Cable and Mr. Jenkins will correct me if I am wrong—on that proposal in this particular bill, although the testimony taken at previous hearings might be considered as applicable to the proposition in this bill. Mr. CABLE. That was on the Welch bill. Mr. GIBSON. That was on the Welch bill: yes. Mr. PURNELL. If a majority of the committee (and I have no way of knowing how they feel), should be in sympathy with the general provisions of the bill with the Filipino sections eliminated, would it be better strategy to send the bill back to the committee, or to go on the floor of the House and let them be stricken out on the floor? Mr. GIBSON. I think it would be better strategy to send the bill back to the committee, in order that the members might report out a bill that will pass quickly and bring about the least possible discussion. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not a fact it would be perfectly impossible for the Immigration Committee ever to pass a bill that would not be highly controversial, or that you could pass quickly in the House? Mr. GIBSON. I think in this case, with the Philippine proposition out, we could pass it in a short time. The CHAIRMAN. My experience has been there has never been a bill from that committee but what was very controversial, with a great many people very ardently for and very ardently opposed, and it would be impossible to report any bill that would pass without considerable discussion on the floor of the House. Mr. GIBSON. I will concede there is bound to be discussion and controversy. Mr. FORT. But the controversy would be less if it were separated, than if the two propositions are connected. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Free, who is the next gentleman to be heard? Mr. FREE. You are hearing those in opposition; I think the commissioner. Mr. DYER. May I be heard just a minute? I have to go to another committee meeting. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. CABLE. May I call your attention to the fact that the vote always on immigration bills has been overwhelming in favor of restriction. The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I feel that is so. Mr. CABLE. I think the sentiment in this case is generally the same. STATEMENT OF HON. LEONIDAS C. DYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mr. DYER. I wish to say I am opposed to this legislation as it affects the Filipino people. I do it on the broad ground it is an injustice to the people of whom we have charge. We have our Army and our Navy there; we have the Chief Executive there; they are under our flag and to treat them legislatively as aliens is an insult. I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I have, in a large measure, talked with Members of the House on both sides of the aisle and and I find a general, almost unanimous, opposition to this part of the bill as it affects the Filipino people, and I believe it would not only do, as I have stated, the greatest possible injustice, inexcusable injustice, to the Filipino people, but there would be no possible chance to pass it in the House. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dyer, would it not be very easy to cut out that section, if the feeling is the same in the House as you think? Mr. DYER. That is not the point I wish to make. It is so unfair and inexcusable. That is my thought. In the first place, the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization did a very great wrong to the Filipino people. Legislation of this character should not have been even reported to the House by that committee. If the Filipino people are to be excluded from this country, in part or in whole, then, Mr. Chairman, we should do the thing that we have pledged the honor of this country to do, through many Presidents and through the Congress itself-give to them that which they have long sought and now seek unanimously-independence. If you will set a date when they are to have their own government, not too far distant, then I would join with my friends from California and the Pacific coast in a matter of this kind; but, until then, I can not support it and I am sure that a majority of the Members of the House and of the Senate, too, will not support it, and I do not think you ought to put this legislation upon the floor of the House with this provision in it. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear the delegate from the Philippines. STATEMENT OF HON. PEDRO GUEVARA, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Mr. GUEVARA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not know how to start my statement, considering the fact that this committee may place me and the people I represent in the position of a man and people without a country of their own, without a flag of their own, and without a government of their own, if the rule applied for by the Committee on Immigration is granted. In this case they will be placed on the threshold of becoming a people wandering around the world without political or juridical identity. I hope that this committee, guided by its sense of justice, will not permit that such legislation may ever be passed or even considered or discussed on the floor of the House. Now, Mr. Chairman, the majority of the Committee on Immigration has applied to this committee for a rule for House Joint Resolution 473, entitled "Further restricting for a period of two years immigration into the United States." In the joint resolution. reported by the House Committee on Immigration and referred to above, there is a section which provides that "all persons who are citizens of the insular possessions of the United States not included within the term United States' as defined in the immigration act of 1924, and who are not citizens of the United States, shall, during 6 |