FOREWORD The object of this pamphlet is to present to the people of the United States the basic and pertinent facts relative to the Philippine question, which has reached an interesting stage through the impasse between Governor-General Wood and the Philippine Legislature. Most of the information and argument contained herein has appeared during recent months in The Manila Times. The American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands, the most representative body of Americans in the Archipelago and the largest American chamber of commerce outside of continental United States, has recently passed a resolution advocating Congressional assertion of the establishment of a territorial government for the Philippines under the permanent sovereignty of the United States. This pronouncement has naturally raised a doubt in the minds of many people as to whether the Americans in the Islands have not been recreant to the "solemn promise" of independence alleged to have been given by the people of the United States. Almost from the moment of American occupation, the people of the United States have been led to believe that such a promise had been given. The statement has been reiterated time without number by both Americans and Filipinos until today it is safe to say that nine out of ten people who have but a surface knowledge of the Philippine question labor under the belief that such a commitment has been actually and authoritatively made. A careful reading of this pamphlet will show that not only has such a promise not been made by the people of the United States, but also that the Philippines are now actually a territory of the United States and that neither the Presi dent of the United States nor Congress has the power to alienate any portion of the public domain over which Ame! ican sovereignty extends, including the territory known as the Philippine Islands. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT CONTAINED IN 1. Leading authorities quoted in this pamphlet, including Attorney-General of the United States Gregory and Justice Malcolm, a recognized Philippine constitutional authority, agree that the status of the Philippines is that of a Territory. Therefore the present form of Philippine government is a territorial form. That assertion is supported by the organic act or charter of every territory organized by Congress. The only difference is one of detail. The American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands is asking Congress to assert the fact that a form of territorial government has been established in the Philippine Islands and that the form adopted requires some amendments to permit the United States to exercise its sovereignty more effectively than is possible under the Organic Act, known as the Jones Law. The Filipino people should be officially notified that Congress has no power to grant the Independence for which they are constantly appealing. 2. By virtue of the provision of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, the Treaty of Paris is the supreme law of the land. 3. Sovereignty, while possessing inherent right to acquire territory through Congress, by cession, conquest, purchase, etc., does not possess inherent right to alienate territory except by direct sanction of the people of the United States as provided in their Constitution. Corroborated by Article 5 of Constitution. (a) The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for acquisition of territory. That power is inherent in sovereignty. (b) Article 4 gives Congress right to "dispose of" territory of the United States, but "dispose of" is not used in the sense of giving away, selling or ceding, but in the sense of making provision for, arranging, distributing. This is corroborated by the language of Treaty of Paris, which in Article 9, makes distinction between "sell" and "dispose of." (c) The people of the United States can directly exercise their power only through direct plebiscite, not provided for in the Constitution except for presidential electors, or through constitutional amendment. (d) The only other method by which public domain can be alienated is by force-revolution or war. 4. By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States and thereby relinquished her sovereignty over the archipelago. The Islands thereby became the absolute territory of the people of the United States, and subject to the sovereignty of the United States which was as complete over the territory acquired, as it was over the territory included in the Louisiana Purchase or any other territory acquired by it. The Treaty, naturally, made no provision concerning the civil rights and political status of the inhabitants. That question was left to be determined by the law-making body of the new sovereignty. Having acquired the territory, Congress was authorized by the provisions of sub-paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Constitution to provide a government therefor, which it has done by two Acts-first, of July 1, 1902; and second, of August 29, 1916. The first was called a temporary government, while the second is permanent. The said acts or charters of the Philippine government only differ from the charters of other territories organized by the Congress of the United States in matters of detail. 5. The Preamble to the Jones Bill has no legal force, is not binding upon the people, and can only be used for clearing up ambiguous or doubtful passages in the text of the Bill. 6. The Preamble contains no "solemn promises" of independence, as is claimed by the independence advocates. 7. President McKinley never made any promise of Philippine independence, nor has Congress ever made such a promise. 8. Utterances of Presidents and statesmen since McKinley's time have on some occasions held out the hope for "ultimate independence," but none of these declarations have been authoritative, nor are they binding upon the people of the United States. Failure of the people to ratify President Wilson's promises at Versailles is best proof of this contention. 9. The "promise" fiction has been utilized by Filipino leaders to support and bolster their independence propaganda, which of late has assumed a character obnoxious to Americans in the Islands and bordering on sedition and disloyalty. It has also been employed as an argument to justify the creation and continuance of the million peso annual Independence Fund which makes such undesirable and obnoxious activities possible by encouraging their continuance. 10. Should Congress, on its own responsibility, pass an Act alienating the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippines, it is inconceivable that any President, without respect to his own opinions and affiliations, would accept the responsibility of approving such an act without reference to his legal advisers and particularly to the opinion of the Supreme Court as to his right to sign such an act. The protests of representatives of vested interests in the Islands, on constitutional grounds, and the representations of foreign nations, invoking the rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris, would be brought prominently to his attention upon the passing by Congress of such legislation. WHAT IS THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE Most people will be puzzled to answer this question. Before the termination of the Spanish-American war there were only two classes of political divisions under the American Flag: States and Territories. (1) Only these two kinds of political unit were recognized in law. No act of Congress or decision of the Supreme Court since then has laid down a ruling that would preclude the Philippines from being classified as a Territory-it being obvious, of course, that the Islands are not a State. (1) The District of Columbia is a special small sub-division of the public domain provision for which was made in the Constitution for the purpose of retting aside land for a national capital which would not be under the jurisdiction of any single state but would be a purely national possession. |