Evening star., 1927-05-08
BY C. v. BUNUAN.
Director Washington Office PHILIPPINE Com
mission of Independence

Director. Washington Office Philippine Com
mission of independence.
Denial of the elemental right of a
people to express their desire On any
public question by means of a method
uniquely democratic and singularly
American cannot but be disappointing
TO those to whom the ways of democ.
racy are being taught. The Presi-
dents veto of the Philippine independ-
ence plebiscite bill, with all due re-
spect to him and appreciating highly
ms solicitude for our welfare, cannot
but have this effect upon the Filipino
people, and we can only wonder what
the citizens of New York or any other
state would say or do did they desire
TO register categorical stand upon
any subject and were denied the op.
portunity And I may say that, CON
trary to the expectation of those who
f1Sure that the veto would serve as
damper to Filipino aspirations, it
serves only to make the F'ilipinos more
determined to work, with even greater
persistence and zeal. for their free
dom. For to deny wish is to inten-
sify it; the only way to stop it is to
satisfy the wish
1t is alleged that the result of the
pleblscite would have been uncon.
VlncIng because the only question
upon which the vote was to be taken
was immediate and complete inde-
pendence- In the first place, that be-
ing the official stand Of those propos-
ing the plebiscite-the leaders, the
legislature and the existing political
partles-it, therefore, was the only
question that could be logically sub
mltted to referendum. In other words,
the people were to be asked whether
they approved that official stand. In
the second place, the vote for imme.
diate and complete independence
would have been so overwhelming
that the votes of the few favoring in
dependence of varying degrees, were
the form of the plebiscite more inclI.
slVe. would not have materially
changed the final result. But it is re-
specttully asked, why wasn't the bill
returned with the advice that the
scope of the plebiscite be widened in
stead OF completely denying it?
II is pointed out that the Philip.
pines, economically, depend so much
upon America through their free-trade
relationship with her that it would be
lolly for them to separate now, and
that these advantages are constantly
increasing and will continue TO in.
crease with development of productive
capacity" Pardoxical as it NAV
seem. this is the very reason why the
philippines are asking for their indie
pendence now. for if we cannot now
a1ord TO forego, as alleged, the finan.
clal advantages of free trade, it fol-
lows that it will be verv much harder
for us to do without them later, when
they will have increased a thousand
told and will have made us helpless
~ dependent upon the United States
advantages which, admittedly, are ben
ef1cial while they last, but a tremen-
dous handicap TO a people starting
anew when removed. Therefore, If in.
dependence is to be given at all, it
should be given Immediately. for the
sooner these benefits are discontinued
the sooner will the Filipinos get start.
ed on their feet
in this connection, it is significant
that the foreign trade Of practically
every republic on earth shows higher
percentage of increase in recent years
without American sovereignty and
free trade with America than does
that of the Philippines with both. IL
the South American republics, with