There is one fact that seems to indicate clearly that self-government for the Philippines was sincerely intended. When the islands were acquired by the United States, Congress did not make the inhabitants citizens of the United States. That was undoubtedly because Congress did not intend that the Filipinos were to merge with our population and remain under the same government permanently. To those who object to Filipino exclusion on ethical grounds I can say that there is far more justification for denying the Filipinos the privilege of free entry to the States than there was for withholding from them the privilege of United States citizenship. I believe that, if Congress. could have forseen at that time the present serious difficulties that have arisen from their unrestricted migration to America, it would have withheld that privilege of complete freedom of entry to the United States.

What are the rights involved in the present situation? The same selfish interests that oppose Filipino exclusion also oppose Philippine independence. Those interests profess love for the Filipino, when all they care about him is to exploit him. Those interests demand that Asiatic laborers shall travel onethird of the distance around the earth to commingle with and oppress our white workingmen on the Pacific coast.

During my remarks on Filipino immigration at the last session of Congress I was asked whether I would consider Philippine independence as a solution of our difficulty. I replied that I would. And I repeat again that I will gladly vote for Philippine independence. The Filipines have demonstrated their ability to govern themselves, and that right should be given them without delay. If independence is agreed to, however, the Filipinos themselves would want sufficient time to adjust their foreign trade to our tariffs before taking the reins of their own government. Their trade interests deserve that consideration and it should be given them. But human interests should come before trade interests. The present migration of Filipino laborers in unlimited numbers to the States is a human problem and it should be settled first.

Who are the opponents of this sorely needed measure to relieve our distress? They consist of three different groups.

First, there are those sincere persons of delicate sympathies who believe Filipino exclusion unethical. This same group has generally opposed all immigration restriction. Such persons opposed even the first Chinese exclusion act. Congress has refused repeatedly to be guided by their policy.

Second, there is the Filipino himself. It is only to be expected that he will oppose such a measure. His opposition is a means to an end. He uses it to force the concession of Philippine independence.

Third, selfish American employers who have always shown a preference for the lowest-priced labor obtainable. Actuated by greed, they would reduce their own fellow countryman to the level of the oriental coolie. In San Francisco, for example, there is a plant controlled by a big national corporation which employs Filipinos at $2.16 per day. American men and women, who were formerly employed at the plant, refused to accept such wages. Thereupon they were discharged and Filipinos were employed in their places at those miserable wages. What is to become of the American family under such conditions?

The thousands of Filipinos employed in San Francisco and in other American cities are unmarried males who, in groups of from 10 to 40, occupy large old abandoned houses in what formerly were first-class residential sections. By dint of collective housekeeping and crowded sleeping quarters, they are able to live on wages which would hardly buy food alone for the average American family. Is it not natural that these young men, living together in such colonies, should desire some form of entertainment such as music and dancing? You can readily understand how the fulfillment of such desires on their part has created for us a very serious social problem.

What will be the result if we effect a drastic curtailment of immigration from Europe and from countries in the Western Hemisphere and, because of false ethical theories, we continue to allow this steady influx of low-paid Filipino laborers? Can those who would exempt the Filipino under the provisions of the Reed-Johnson bill assume the responsibility of controlling the bitter wrath of the unemployed white workmen of the Pacific coast? From hotels and private hospitals in Pacific coast and other large American cities

American men and women have been discharged and Filipinos put in their places. Is it proper, then, to call a bill which contains a Filipino exclusion provision an offensive measure? It is purely and simply defensive. It is protective of both races. Is it right to permit more and deeper racial animosities to develop in this country? Are we going to say to the white European: "You must not come here. We are cutting down your quota by 90 per cent in order to protect our American workmen, but we will continue to admit Filipinos in unlimited numbers?" We already have racial problems which we inherited and which are unavoidable. Should we add to what we have? On many occasions California, Washington, and Oregon have had to strain their police powers to give proper protection to these exploited immigrants. We will continue to protect them with all the resources at our command. We stand for law and order, but we are fearful of what may happen if the present situation is further aggravated by allowing Filipino immigrant laborers to pour into this country without restriction. The situation on the Pacific coast is acute. It is our very serious problem to-day; it will be yours to-morrow.

Every American workingman, willing to work, should have the assurance of a steady job as a means of earning a respectable livelihood in accordance with American standards. Yet we permit foreign immigrants to displace him. Machinery has displaced him. He has been buffeted about in a maze of mergers, mass production, and mechanization. What are we doing to help him maintain his place in this rapidly changing industrial system? Property rights are always deserving of consideration, but human rights must come first. Let us keep the man above the dollar.

A merger of eastern railroads has recently been proposed.

Economies are

to be effected by lessening trackage and by more efficient methods which will result eventually in a reduction of personnel. There is no disputing the fact that, from the standpoint of profitable operation, this would be a worthy accomplishment. From the human standpoint, however, there is a moral obligation to provide adequately for the workmen displaced by that merger. In 1929 the railroads carried more freight than ever before, and they did it with a quarter of a million fewer men than were employed in 1920.

By reason of improved machinery, larger locomotives, and larger freight cars, they were able to lay off 250,000 men. But no provision for other jobs was ever made for those men. Merging of railroads, consolidation of large industrial and commercial interests, increased use of labor-saving machines, and mass production seem to be the order of this progressive day and age, but they must at the same time be paralleled by a corresponding curtailment of the hours of labor. Labor has a just claim to a fair participation in the benefits derived from improved machinery and improved methods of production, particularly where the improvements result in a reduction of labor requirements. Up to the present time the worker has not been acceded the benefits to which it is entitled. During this readjustment should we not at least protect his lessening opportunities from the competition of foreign immigrants, particularly from nonassimilable Asiatics, whose wages and low living standards no American workingman can compete against.

In conclusion, may I refer, breifly, to the views expressed by my colleague from Vermont, Colonel Gibson, in his minority report on House Joint Resolution 473, the Free bill, as well as in a verbal statement before your committee.

In one paragraph of this report, he states:

To exclude or restrict the Filipinos is an act which even the most selfish colonizing powers known in history dared not commit. If this bill becomes a law, it will be the first time in the history of mankind that a mother country forbids the entry into the homeland of the people of the colony, and if it is considered that we are the first nation in all history to adopt altruism and

benevolence as our form of conduct in our treatment of our colonies, such an act becomes the more questionable.

Present-day colonizing powers, such as England, France, and Japan, have never adopted exclusion laws against their colonies.

This is a most appealing statement and tends to raise up the spirit of fair play in every red-blooded American.

May I, on the other hand, put the acid of analysis upon this statement and briefly point out how idle and misleading it is?

Colonization came to the Atlantic seaboard from the British Isles, from Anglo-Saxon and Celt stock. Brazil was colonized from Portugal. The rest of South America, Central America, and Mexico, and what is now California and Texas were once part of the Spanish Empire. Quebec and the Louisiana Territory were colonized from France.

When, since the landing of the Pilgrims, has there been a migration from this Western Hemisphere back to the motherlands? Such a migration has never occurred and such a migration will never happen. It is as unthinkable as shipping coals to Newcastle or oil to Oklahoma.

(The committee thereupon adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)