But I was made to understand that this group was interested in knowing our side of the question, so I felt that I had to come. In no spirit of propaganda do I come for I am not here to convince you, but we felt (and this is directed to my American friends) that since the Philippine problem concerns you and us that it was due you to have our side of it. So I will try to give it. I will present to you briefly the present situation and what there is in it that leads to friction among us or may lead to future friction, and in order to do that I will enumerate certain other situations which have arisen in the past and show their bearing with the present.

Situation Number One, which I hope you will remember. During the last quarter of the 19th century there was a reform movement in the Philippine Islands headed by educated Filipinos in Europe. This movement found radical expression in our revolution against Spain in 1896.

Situation Number Two. After we had been fighting Spain with some degree of success America declared war against Spain in 1898 for the purpose, we were told, of putting an end to Spanish misrule in Cuba and setting up a new republic in the West Indies. This republic was organized under the auspices of America but the same war which America declared against Spain resulted differently in the East Indies. From our point of view, it resulted in the destruction of the first and only Christian republic in the Orient-the Philippine Republic we had tried to organize. Had there been a means of getting together in a frank way and acting accordingly at the time when the Filipinos and Americans went into a war, I feel sure that the world would have been spared the sad picture of soldiers of a nation "conceived in liberty" fighting men who dared rise against Spain in search of liberty.

But fortunately America saved her reputation among us rather quickly. The school system, in my opinion, is a concrete expression of the altruistic policy with which America dealt with the Filipinos, just as the hundreds of old churches built by the Spanish religions centuries ago today represent the splendid missionary spirit of Spain in days gone by. During the early period of Filipino-American relationship, when the whole American nation was engaged in re-evaluating political concepts to suit a new situation, and the American people made earnest searchings into their precious heritage of political ideals in retaining the Philippines, the voice of America, spoken through the President and his authorized agents, revived the hopes of the Filipino people, and strengthened the position of those who advocated faith in America's promises as the cornerstone of our national policy.

In his instructions to the Philippine Commission, President McKinley said: "The Philippines are ours, not to exploit but to develop, to civilize, to educate, to train in the science of self-government." That the Philip

pines was for the Filipinos, and that the Filipino people were entitled to increasing extension of self-government; these formed the backbone of America's early policy of attraction. The question of independence, it was said, was to be left for future determination of a self-governing state. However, the Filipinos continued to press their demand for independence.

In the meanwhile, even self-government itself was slow in coming, in the opinion of the people. There was being created an American government bureaucracy that showed self-perpetuating tendencies, and a keen eye for signs of "native incapacity." The American press, too, backed up by Americans, was loud in proclaiming "native incapacity." In the face of humiliating insults hurled at them in their very home, is it at all strange that the people, even the conservative ones, should urge the getting of independence, the only status compatible with their self-respect as a nation?

In 1913 the voice of America spoke in clearer notes. The American President in a message to the Filipino people said: "We regard ourselves as trustees acting not for the advantage of the United States, but for the benefit of the people of the Philippine Islands. Every step we take will be taken with a view to the ultimate independence of the islands and as a preparation for that independence."

Finally, in 1916 America's solution to the Philippine problem as incorporated in the Jones Law, entitled "An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those islands." The preamble of that act stated (1) that “it was never the intention of the people of the United States in the incipiency of the war with Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; (2) that "it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein;" and (3) that "for the speedy accomplishment of such purpose, it is desirable to place in the hands of the people of the Philippines as large a control of their domestic affairs as can be given without in the meantime impairing the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the people of the United States in order that by the use and exercise of popular franchise and governmental powers they may be the better prepared to fully assume the responsibilities and enjoy all the privileges of complete independence."

When first enacted the Jones law with its promise of independence was hailed with enthusiasm by the Filipino people. To them it meant the early realization of their national ambition for they expected that America

would soon fulfill her promise. It is true that during America's participation in the World War the Philippines not only avoided importuning the American government with urgent demand for independence, but in many concrete and generally considered valuable ways tried to show her loyalty to the American cause in that great war. Filipino attention was devoted to internal reorganization of their government with a view to making it more responsive to the newly acquired power of the people. But the signing of the armistice marked the revival of Filipino demand for independence.

Will America fulfill her promise in good faith? Or is the Jones law going to be a "mere scrap of paper" that will be disregarded on any of the usual grounds advanced to justify the conduct of a stronger nation towards a weaker one? These are the questions at present arising in the Filipino mind, and challenging the serious consideration of American citizens. Already it is possible to discern a danger pointed out by Mr. Taft as early as 1902 when he argued against giving a definite promise of independence. "A promise to give the people independence when they are fitted for it," he said, "would inevitably be accepted by the agitators and generally by the people as a promise to give them independence within the present generation, and would therefore, be misleading, and the source of bitter criticism of the American government within a few years after the promise was given and not performed, as it was understood by the people."

But the promise contained in the Jones law is even more specific than that feared by Mr. Taft. It means the granting of and recognition of independence "as soon as a stable government can be established." To the late Theodore Roosevelt this meant the immediate future. Writing in 1916 he said: "This Administration was elected on the specific promise to give freedom to the Philippines. The United States must keep its promises." And after referring to the inability of the United States to defend distant dependencies, he said: "Above all, we have promised the Filipinos independence in terms which were inevitably understood to be independence in the immediate future." ("Fear God and Take Your Own Part," 1916.)

The Filipinos submit that a stable government is an established fact in the Philippines, that they have, therefore, complied with the requirement of the Jones law, and are entitled to their freedom.

Now what is a stable government? In the very relationship of the United States with Cuba, a stable government, in the words of President McKinley when addressing the Cuban people, was defined as one "capable of maintaining order and observing its international obligations, insuring

peace and tranquility and the security of its citizens, as well as our own.” Mr. Root, in his instructions to the Cuban people, added that the new government must rest upon the peaceful suffrages of the people and must contain constitutional limitations to protect the people from the arbitrary actions of the government.

These elements of a stable government are present in the Philippines.

There are, however, those who are opposed to the carrying out of America's policy in the Philippines. It is the activity of these which constitute a real source of racial hatred in my country. There are certain Americans both in the Philippines and in the United States to whom the Filipino elected leaders are mere agitators and demagogues. These are men who seem to love the Filipino more than the Filipinos themselves can love their own people. They are the ones who take advantage of every opportunity to give the widest publicity to unfair information about the Filipinos. They love the pagans so dearly that they invariably represent him in published pictures as the Philippine citizen asking for freedom. They like the Mohammedan Filipinos so much that they take every opportunity to stir up religious prejudice against fellow-Christians-the Christian Filipinos, who constitute the bulk of our population. What is fellowship in Christ when compared with the attainment of a more fundamental economic objective? What is Christian charity when it interferes with their aim to depict the Filipino people in the darkest of colors before American public opinion? Only a few days ago, a member of the American Congress who spent a few days in and about Manila, stated in this city that he found the Filipinos not only incapable of independence, but in his opinion, they will never be capable of it. Would he and his type be more charitable toward other people's capacity and develop intellectual humility if we reminded them of what Roosevelt wrote about the danger to civilization felt by the Greeks and the Romans only a few hundred years ago on account of the invasions by the barbarians of Northern Europe—the ancestors of these same men who today actually claim to be the exclusive possessors of all the human virtues and, in the garb of world-trotters, pass judgment on the past, present and future capacities of the "natives" of Oriental countries?

Likewise, there are enemies of Philippine freedom whose definition of "stable government" is synonymous to the millenium itself. These are the men who cannot deny the truth of Philippine progress. And yet they must find a moral justification for their opposition; and so they actually demand the existence of an ideal state as a condition to the granting of national independence. It is the unreasonableness of this extra-legal re

quirement that causes the Filipino people to doubt the sincerity of those who advocate it.

It is well for impartial American citizens whose duty is to keep untarnished the honor of America, to ascertain whether American-Filipino relations are not drifting in the wrong direction. Just as the "open door" policy advocated by the United States for China marked a new era in international relations in Asia, so America's policy in the Philippines set a new standard in world colonization. While the extent of self-government granted by congressional legislation did not free the Philippines from the annoying and unnecessary interference of continental American politics, and did not give the Filipinos the same measure of domestic autonomy that has been conceded by England to her self-governing colonies, the outstanding fact should be recognized that no dependency inhabited by a nonCaucasian race has received the same degree of self-government that the Filipinos acquired from the United States. And more significant still is America's definite policy of granting independence to the last and only unincorporated dependency under the American flag.

And those of us who have learned to admire and love America, especially those who have been nurtured in the liberal atmosphere of American institutions, both in the Philippines and in the United States, feel that we are entitled to raise our voice of protest against Americans who will make America break her pledge of honor for the sake of their material advantage. American success in the development of earth's natural resources is an admirable achievement. But to those of us in other parts of the world who find happiness with much less material success, America's political idealism is her asset that should endure forever. In the words of an eminent American historian: "Our destiny is not the making of money, but the making of America. Our heritage of political ideals is a far richer possession than our heritage of material success; for if the ideals be lost or obscured, all the treasures of field, factory, and mine cannot avail to save us from the fate of Nineveh or Rome." (D. S. Muzzey, The United State of America, vol. I).

II. NEW ZEALAND'S OUTLOOK UPON PACIFIC PROBLEMS

BY J. B. CONDLIFFE

New Zealand is a self-governing dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Its area is approximately the same as that of Great Britain and, although it is a mountainous country, the larger part of it is suitable for fairly close farming settlement. It is well endowed with abundance of water both for power and for natural irrigation, and its climate is such