Discurso En Pro, Del Er. Marcos

Media

Part of Diario de Sesiones de la Legislatura Filipina

Title: Discurso En Pro, Del Er. Marcos
Language: Spanish
Year: 1927
Rights
Fulltext: LEGISLATURA FILIPINA 2067 Sr. GUARif;lA. Es que el Colector de Aduanas tiene en cuenta las circunstancias que atraviesa el cabotaje <lei pais; sabe que no puede exigir mas de los navieros, y tiene que obrar de acuerdo con esas circunstancias. Sr. FESTiN. l,Le ha dicho eso a Su Seiioria el Colector de Aduanas? Sr. GUARIAA. No, senor. Sr. FEsTfN. (.Conoce Su Sefioria el desastre del Quantico? Sr. GUARINA. Si, sefior. Sr. FESTIN. iNo sabe Su Seiloria que el Quantico era uno de los barcos mas fuertes y consistentes? Sr. GUARINA. Es una excepci6n. Sr. F'EsTfN. Cuando se trata de un barco nuevo, fuerte y consistente y que reune las me.lores condiciones y naufraga, ei:; una excepci6n. Sr. GUARINA. Si, seiior, porque en Filipinas es inconcebible que se hayan hundido muchos barcos en nueve aiios. Sr. FESTfN. i,No sabe Su Sefi.oria que hace dos meses, un barco extranjero naufrag6 tambien cerca de Balabag? Sr. GUARINA. Otra excepci6n. Sr. GARCfA. Sefi.or Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador. El PRES!DENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Sr. GUARINA. Si, sefi.or. Sr. GARCfA. Si no he comprendido mal, parece que oor a1gU.n tiempo, la Compafi.ia Tabacalern se ha visto precisada a fl.etar algunos barcos de la Casa Madrigal para operar en la linea nQol Norte. Sr. GUARINA. Si, sefi.or. Sr. GARCIA. Y que la Tabacale1 'isto en la precisi6n de fletar esos barcos, r s suyos no son suficientes. Sr. GUARINA. Si, sefi.or, ha;) .£1ta .rga y pasaje, que un barco no es bastante. Sr. GARCiA. ;, Y no cree Su Sefi.oria que quitando el privilegio de reponer los barcos que tiene la Tabacalera, los navieros filipinos podrian hacer mejor negocio alli? Sr. GUARINA. Es que no somos partidarios de la reposici6n del tonelaje perdido, sino que estamos pediendo ahora, que sean sustituidas las unidarl<'s que tienen los extranjeros. Sr. GARCiA. Adoptando esa actitud que Su Sefioria acaba de manifestar, y buscando solamente que se permita a los navieros extranjeros sustituir sus viejos barcos con otros nuevos, ;, no cree Su Sefioria que dando esa oportunidad a los navieros filipinos antes que a los extranjeros, los barcos de las navieros filipinos que operan esa linea, operarian mejor? Sr. GUARINA. Eso si el filipino puede cubrirla, pues si no la cubre, daria Ingar a que el extranjero tenga mas, y no queremos eso, porque somos proteccionistas. Sr. GARCfA. l,De modo que Su Sefioria presume en este momento que los navieros filipinos no podrim obtener el tonelaje suficiente para responder a las demandas de la linea del Norte? Sr. GUARINA. No me refiero a una ruta detcrminada, sino que tengo ente'ndido que las casas navieras filipinas no pueden traer muchos barcos para cubrir las lineas maritimas. Eso lo ha dicho el mismo Fernandez. Sr. GARCfA. Yo me he referido a una linea especifica en mi pregunta y quisiera una contestaci6n sobre esa linea. Digo yo, que si nosotros no permitiesemos a. los navieros extranjeros que pongan nuevos barcos en sustituci6n de los que tienen ahora, l. no cree Su Seiioria que la presunci6n es que el :filipino podrA tambien hacerlo? Sr. GUARIAA. Madrigal mismo, retir6 la consignaci6n o dej6 de fletar esos barcos. Madrigal puede operar ahora mismo, juntamente con el Mauban de la Tabacalera. Sr. GARCIA. i Pero no ha dicho Su Seiloria que la Compafiia Tabacalera es quien ha fletado los barcos de Madrigal? Sr. GUARIAA. No, estan consignados a la Tabacalera. Y si eso es verdad, el verdadero propietario es Madrigal. · Sr. GARCIA. Lo que he querido saber de Su Seiioria es, si la Compafi.ia Tabacalera tiene fl.etados esos barcos. Sr. GUARINA. No se si estin fletados o consignados a la Tabacalera; pero sea lo uno o lo otro, si estan consignados, eso prueba que el naviero filipino compite con la Tabacalera en el Norte, cuando Madrigal no ha dicho que esta perdiendo. Si estan fletados por· la Tabacalera y no hemos podido filipinizar la linea del Norte, la culpa la tiene Madrigal, que es un filipino como nosotros. ~I debia operar esos barcos. La Comisi6n de Servicios PU.blicos puede reservar una parte de la carga de la Tabacalera para otros barcos. Es una utilidad pt'iblica, y la Comisi6n de Servicios PU.blicos puede compeler a la Tabacalera. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. Ha expirado el tiempo del Caballero por Sorsog6n. Sr. PERFECTO (G.). Pido el consentimiento unanime de la Camara para que se concedan 20 minutos mas al Caballero por Sorsog6n. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. • Hay alguna obj eci6n? Sr. p ALARCA. Me opongo. Mr. MARCOS. I object. Sr. GUARIAA. Voy a dejar de contestar a las preguntas, para que los otros puedan hablar. DISCURSO EN PRO, DEL SR. MARCOS Mr. MARCOS. Mr. Speaker, misunderstanding is the cause of nearly all troubles. And we can go as far as to say that misunderstanding is the cause of all troubles. Because of misunderstanding a brother has to fight a brother, a wife to fight a husband, and nation to fight a nation. And in many instances it had been the cause of many a national conflagration. Misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, entered the portals of this magnificent hall and is now creating a rumpus among the members of this august body. Because of this rumpus, it is said that a certain group has formed a bloc, another group another bloc, and then there goes the story that some Representatives were bribed to favor or to oppose the measure. And yet if each and "Very one of us would only be willing enough to tak(~ th~ medicine in order that our passion and emotion 2068 DIARIO DE SESIONES would subside down to normal condition, I am sure that such a misunderstanding would be ironed out. What is the cause of the misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker? Those who are against the measure claim and assert that we have to improve the interisland service because it is inadequate, unsatisfactory, and unsafe. And those who are on the other side, those who are now favoring the measure, claim the same thing. They assert the same thing as proven by this explanatory note of the bill. It says here: "This bill is introduced with the hope that it will i·espond to the unceasing clamor of the public for better treatment of passengers on board vessels plying in Philippine waters. It assures the passengers the space, food, sanitary necessities and all other privileges to which they are entitled in proportion to the fare that they pay. The bill also prohibits the carrying on board of all such objects and articles ns may endanger the life or health of the passengers, as well as the carrying of hol'Ses, and cattle, an.d other animals on deck near or appurtenant to the berth or compartments of the passengers for hygienic reasons." Such being the case, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why we should be fighting on this point when both sides agree on the same matter. They agree upon the same principle. Both, in other words, are in favor of correcting the anomaly. Both are in favor of making the interisland service more adequate, more satisfactory, and safer. ·'So, in so far as that point is concerned, there is no question. Those who are in favor of the measure claim and assert that in matters of this kind we should not lose sight of protectionism and nationalism. The other side claim that the bill does not protect the nationals. In other words, they want a bill that would protect the nationals, yes, one that would protect the Filipino people. So, there again is another point on which the two parties agree. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for some questions? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The gentleman may yield if he so desires. Mr. MARCOS. With pleasure. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). Has the gentleman from !locos Norte sailed on any of the steamers from his province to this place? Mr. MARCOS. Yes, sir. Mr. PERFECTO ( F. A.). Has he observed the conditions found on those steamers? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Albay, may I know what your purpose is, to cut short with the interpellations? Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). I think my question is very clear. Mr. MARCOS. That is it; if you have many questions to ask which can be asked only in one question, it would be better. You see, you have interrupted me in the middle of my speech, and I would like to go ahead with my remarks. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). My question is, do you know the conditions of the steamers and the kind of service given by the steamers? Mr. MARCOS. Yes. Mr. PERFECTO ( F. A.). My question was clear enough. Mr. MARCOS. Exactly. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). Has the gentleman from Ilocos Norte taken into consideration the fact, that in the lines in the Bicol region, some of the merchants cannot load or contract the service of the steamers plying between those places, because the present number of steamers cannot meet the necessities of the ·merchants in that region? Mr. MARCOS. Well, I cannot see why you ask me that question when in fact I am in favor of improving the interisland service. You should direct that question to one who is not in favor of improving the shipping service. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). I believe that the gentleman from Ilocos Norte should be kind enough to give good answers because if the answers are bad they would create some misunderstanding. It seems to me that the gentleman from Ilocos Norte started by saying that he is desirous of clarifying misunderstanding, but in fact he seems to foster it in his answers. Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Albay, I am not creating misunderstanding; I am clarifying misunderstanding. You say I am fostering it, but I am pacifying it and I am trying to clarify misunderstanding. You have taken just the opposite view. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). We will leave that aside. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte knows that the present bill he is now favoring provides for the creation of a board that will determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the tonnage in the different lines in the Philippine Islands. Does he favor that provision of the bill? Mr. MARCOS. I shall answer that question in the course of my peroration. Mr. PERFECTO ( F. A.) . I would like an answer now. Mr. MARCOS. My answer is long, so allow me to answer your question in the course of my remarks. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). Does the gentleman from Ilocos Norte know that the Morton Committee and the Collector of Customs have already given their reports stating that there is insufficiency of tonnage in all the lines of the Philippines? Mr. MARCOS. Probably so. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). If that is true, will not the gentleman from Ilocos Norte agree with me that that precise provision of the bill is unnecessary because we know already that there is insufficiency of tonnage in all the lines? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Albay, as I have already said, I will answer that question in the course of my speech. However, if that is your only objection, you can present an amendment. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). Will the gentleman from Ilocos Norte accept an amendment to that effect? Mr. MARCOS. I am not in a position to answer for the committee. However, I am sure the members of the committee will have no objection to accept any feasible amendment. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). The gentleman in speaking in favor of the bill, must have taken notice that the bill provides for the filing of bonds on the part of the Filipino shipowners to give them a chance to provide for the necessary tonnage? LEGISLATURA FILIPINA 2069 Mr. MARCOS. That is true. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). And yet those who sponsor the bill say that they favor a policy of nationalism to protect shipping in the Philippine Islands? Mr. MARCOS. I shall answer that in the course of my peroration, because your questions are not side issues-they are the principal issues. Naturally, I shall have to limit my arguments to those issues. Mr. PERFECTO (F. A.). The gentleman from Ilocos Norte must have taken notice that some of those who favor the present bill seem to claim that we must give a nationalistic and protectionist law in favor of five or six shipowners in the Philippine Islands, and let the service as it is. Mr. MARCOS. That is where I disagree with you, and if you would allow me to continue my remarks I believe we shall come to a point on which to agree: (Continuing.) Mr. Speaker, both parties agree that we need a safer, more adequate and more efficient interisland service. That point is agreed. We want a law that protects our nation. Those who are on the liberal party as we may call it that is those who are against the measure, say 1that th~ bill does not protect the nationals. In so far as that is concerned, it is a matter of interpretation because those that favor the meaure say that it protects the nation. Let us then come to the interpretation of the provisions of the bill. We must not lay aside the intention of the leg:islators. The explanatory note of the bill emphatically states that it is for the purpose of giving protection to the nationals. So on those two points we agree. The other point is that those who are against the measure say that it is a dilatory measure, because it will require the appointment of a committee to make a report to the Governor-General, and after some days the Governor-General will make a proclamation, and after that it will require the shipowners to file a bond of not less than 1"25,000 and not more that 1"50,000 for each ship, and many other things more. That means to say that it will need about two years before a ship could be introduced. But, gentle!"en of the liberal group, did not the representative of the Tabacalera state in the public hearing that they could not introduce a new ship in less two years' time? Such being the case, neither your stand nor our stand can immediately improve the inter-island service. At least two years must elapse before any improvement could be made. Mr. BITENG. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman permit some questions? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Does the gentleman .from Ilocos Norte yield to the gentleman from Ilocos Sur? Mr. MARCOS. I yield. Mr. BI'!'ENG. Will the gentleman from Ilocos Norte please inform the House whether the Filipino shipowners may not, according to the present laws of the land, bring in new vessels? Mr. MARCOS. Yes, sir; they can. Mr. BITENG. And does the gentleman from Ilocos Norte know that the law involved in the bill under discussion was approved in 1918? 286810--5 Mr. MARCOS. That is well known, gentleman from Ilocos Sur. Mr. BITENG. Therefore.,the gentleman from Ilocos Norte must admit that since 1918 up to the present time the Filipino shipowners have had a chance to bring in as many vessels as they wanted to in the Philippine Islands. Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Ilocos Sur, your question needs a very long answer. I have to relate to you the story of the Filipino shipowners from 1918 up to the present time. It will cover a book or perhaps volumes. Mr. BITENG. Cannot the Filipino shipowners improve the lines without interfering with the rights of the foreign shipowners conceded by the Philippine Legislaturre? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Ilocos Sur I know that you understand that there will come the question of competition. Mr. BITENG. In other words, gentleman from Ilocos Norte, do you admit that the Filipino shipowner~ are not in a position to compete with the foreign shipowners unless we approve the bill under discussion? Mr. MARCOS. And there is where I should have you remember the principle of protectionism, which is the one that I am going to discuss. There is where our shipowners need protection. Of course, we know already that they cannot compete with the foreign ~om~anies because the latter are very rich. Everythmg is at their disposal, but our Filipino shipowners comparatively are poor. Mr. BITENG. Does not the gentleman from Ilocos Norte know that the foreign shipping companies in the Philippine Islands have a right to repair their vessels from year to year? Mr. MARCOS. That is the very reason why the law, in 1918, was adopted that way, gentleman from Ilocos Sur. Mr. BITENG. Now, if the foreign shipping companies have a right to repair their vessels from year to year, that means that their present vessels could ply on the Philippine waters, may be for 50, 70, 100 years, or more. Mr. MARCOS. Well, that is only a probability, gentleman from Ilocos Sur, for you must not lose sight of the intention of the legislators when they approved the bill in 1918. They had in mind the idea that the shipping business would gradually fall into the hands of the nationals. Mr. BITENG. But will any foreign vessels ever fall into the hands of the Filipinos if the foreign shipping companies have a right to repair them from year to year? Mr. MARCOS. It is very simple. There will be a time when the cost of the repair of one of these foreign ships will be more than the cost of a new ship, so the owners will prefer to buy new ones. Mr. BITENG. Now, how many years shall we have to wait until that time comes when the foreign vessels will no longer be of any service? Can the gentleman from Ilocos Norte say more or less how many years-30, 40, or 100 years? Mr. MARCOS. As I understand, gentleman from Ilocos Sur, the moment the Collector of Customs 2070 DIARIO DE SESIONES declares that a steamship is unseaworthy, on that moment she ceases to ply in the Philippine waters. So it will depend upon the seaworthiness of the vessel. Even five years from now if the Collector of Customs says this ship is unseaworthy, she shall have to stop. Mr. BITENG. Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to hear the story of the gentleman from Ilocos Norte from 1918 up to the present time. Mr. MARCOS. (Continuing.) So, Mr. Speaker, the question then that arises is contained in section ( b) on page 2 of the explanatory note. It says here: .. To grant to the domestic companies the preferential opportunity of improving the said service, giving such opportunity only in a secondary manner to the foreign companies authorized by the law of 1918 to engage in the shipping trade in the event that the domestic companies are unable or unwilling to take advantage of such preference." Sr. PAREDES. i Tendria Su Sefioria la amabilidad de informarnos si es uno de las que han firmado una enmienda, par la cual se autoriza la reposici6n de barcos extranjeros bafo ciertas condiciones? Mr. MARCOS. Well, I am one of them, gentleman from Abra. And I am speaking in favor of the bill because as I understand, the rules and regulations of the House require that those who are ready to present an amendment should speak in favor. I may be mistaken, but that is the way I understand the rules and regulations of the House. Sr. PAREDES. ;.Pero no cree Su Sefioria que este bill respecto al cual Su Sefioria esta hablando ahora, es esencialmente proteccionista, mientras que el bill que Su Sefioria ha presentado es reposicionista, o · sea anti-proteccionista? Mr. MARCOS. Well, this is the thing, gentleman from Abra. The amendment which we have presented by substitution, contains something like this: ""' "' "' those new vessels to replace the old ones will last only a number of years during which time the old vessels will continue plying on the Philippine waters.'' Let us take for example, steamship "B." After investigation the committee may say it would last only fifteen years. Then a new boat will be built to replace that old vessel only during fifteen years. If steamship "B" will last twenty years more, the foreign companies will be authorized to buy a new boat to replace this old vessel for a twenty-year term. That is the way I understand our amendment. And you are also one of the authors of the amendment. Sr. PAREDES. ;.No estaria entonces en conflicto ese bill que nosotros he mos firm ado, Su Sefioria y su servidor, con el bill que se esta ahora discutiendo y que defiende Su Sefioria? Mientras que por el presente bill se da absoluta preferencia a los filipinos a poner los barcos antes que el extranjero, por el bill que Su Sefioria y su servidor hemos firmado y que esta en la Camara, damos al extranjero de: recho de preferencia para reponer sus propios barcos. i. Que voto podriamos esperar de Su Sefioria en el caso en que se plantee la siguiente cuesti6n: votad por el bill Briones o por el bill Marcos, Paredes, etc? Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Abra, I will have to state frankly and sincerely that I consider you as one of the brains of the party. However, if you would permit me to explain the way I view the very amendment that we have prepared it runs thus. The amendment that we have presented aims to have new boats in order to correct the anomaly existing, that is, the inadequate, unsatisfactory and inefficient service given at present. We want these old boats which could continue for twenty years to ply yet in Philippine waters to be changed with new ones, and we would get what we are after. In other words, we can get new accommodation, better satisfaction and a greater measure of safety for the Filipino people. So in that case, I am not favoring the foreigners, but I am only giving justice to them. I may be mistaken, gentleman from Abra, but that is the way I understand these two words. With the amendment I do not favor the foreigners, but I give them justice. Is it not true that favor and justice differ in meaning? Sr. PAREDES. Agradezco las distinciones hechas por Su Sefioria y temiendo abusar de su bondad, me permitiria una indiscreci6n m8.s. i. Permitiria Su Se:iioria que le preguntase c6rno votaria, si yo llegase a presentar como una enrnienda a este bill el bill que Su Seiioria y otros mas, con un servidor, hemos firmado? Mr. MARCOS. Well, as I have already said, gentleman from Abra, my speaking in favor of the bill does not make me inconsistent. You have watched the way I stand here. There may be a seeming inconsistency on my part but the moment our amendment is put to a vote, inasmuch as it is not in conflict with the bill we are discussing, I shall have to vote for the amendment which your honor and I have presented. Sr. PAREDES. Muy satisfecho, Caballero por Ilocos Norte. Mr. MARCOS. (Continuing.) Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder to me why it is claimed that those who are in favor of the bill that is now under consideration do not know how to respond to the claim of the public. They claim that those who are in favor of the measure would only put to a dangerous situation those hundreds and hundreds of people who travel from Manila to many islands of the country. If hundreds and hundreds of persons are put in a very dangerous position, those representatives who are speaking in favor of the measure will be included in that group, and put their lives in a very dangerous condition. Take, for example, the representatives from Cebu, Messrs. Briones, Cuenco, and. Ybafiez. There is no means by which they can reach Cebu from Manila except by steamboats, yet they are in favor of the Briones bill, because they want protectionism or nationalism. Sr. OPPUS. ;.Sabe Su Sefioria que la linea mejor servida, la que tiene mejores buques, es la linea de Manila-Cebll, de manera que no se puede hablar alli de proteccionismo, porque ya estamos muy seguros? Mr. MARCOS. Well, you want me to go ahead and cite other names, gentleman from Leyte. We have Representatives Kapunan and Marcaida and then LEGISLATURA FILIPINA 2071 Representative Reyes from Sorsogon who have announced their desire to speak in favor of the measure, and there is no way by which they could reach their homes except by steamboats. Sr. OPPUS. Desgraciadamente para Su Seiioria tanto el Representante Kapunan coma el Representante Reyes, viajan muy bien, porque el Representante Kapunan tiene a su disposici6n cuatro buques, el Churruca, el Leyte, el Sontua y el Visayas, y el Representante Reyes no tiene por que preocuparse, porque viaja en tren. Mr. MARCOS. Well, that is a question of appreciation, gentleman from Leyte. I am glad you said before this august body that you are satisfied with the service of our Filipino shipowners. I thought that all of those belonging to the liberal party claim the interisland service is unsatisfactory! Sr. OPPUS. Satisfecho con esa linea, nada mas. Sr. GUARINA. Seiior Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Sr. MARCOS. Si, sefior. Sr. GUARINA. ;,Considera Su Seiioria proteccionista este bill que esta bajo nuestra consideraci6n? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Sorsogon, that is the way I see it. I may be wrong, I am sorry to state, but I have studied the matter conscientiously and with mature reflection, and I have come to the conclusion that this bill is for the protection of nationals. Sr. GUARillA. <Cua! es la parte de! bill por la cual podemos llegar a la conclusi6n de que es proteccionista? Mr. MARCOS. Well, the nature of the bill itself. Sr. GUARillA. <Cua! es la parte de! bill que concede preferencia al naviero filipino? Mr. MARCOS. it says here: "to have a careful study and investigation." Sr. GUARINA. ;,Quiere decir Su Se:fioria que ya sabe el report del Comite que se crea en el bill, y las rotas que se van a abrir en el Archipielago, ya le son conocidas? Mr. MARCOS. Well, in that very case, gentleman from Sorsol?'on, I cannot answer you categorically. Sr. GUil. 1. ;, Sabe Su Sefioria poco mAs o menos cuiles son esas rutas? Mr. MARCOS. The same thing, gentleman from Sorsogon. Nobody can answer that question categorically. . Sr. GUARINA. i. Y·no sabe Su Sefioria que esa ruta que mafiana se va a abrir, puede ser cubierta par las navieros filipinos? Mr. MARCOS. The point is we do not yet know. That is why we want to create a committee to investigate the matter. I think it is a wrong idea to begin with the premise that we already know the situation because the moment we know it there is no need for an investigation. Sr. GUARillA. • Entonces, d6nde esta el proteccionismo del bill, cuando las extranj eras entraran, en caso de no cubrirse esas rutas par las filipinos? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Sorsogon, if that is your very question, can you assure us that the foreigners will be able to do the same? Sr. GUARillA. •Esta seguro Su Seiioria de que las rotas que ese Comite va abrir, van a ser cubiertas mafiana par las navieros filipinos? Mr. MARCOS. But they will have to replace only those boats that are old now so in that case we are giving protection to our nationals. Sr. GUARillA. <No sabe Su Sefioria que hay una puerta abierta, por donde pueden entrar las extranjeros? Mr. MARCOS. I should think so. Sr. GUARillA. Entonces Su Sefioria no ha leido el bill. Este da oportunidad al extranjero, siempre que el filipino no pueda cubrir la ruta. Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Sorsogon, the moment no Filipino can do it, we cannot do anything else. But the point is that we should give preference to the nationals, we sohuld give preference to the Filipinos. The moment they cannot do it, give the chance to the foreigners. Sr. GUARINA. Vamos a suponer que hay cuatro rutas. Las dos rutas se cubren par navieros filipinos. Ahora pregunto; ;, es proteccionista este bill, cuando hace entrar a las extranj eros en las dos rutas restantes? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Sorsogon, as I have said, both parties agree on the principle of protectionism. If you believe that the bill that is now under discussion does not protect the nationals, I can anticipate that the members of the Committee on Navigation will accept an amendment which would protect the nationals. That is all agreed. Both parties agree to the principle of protectionism. Sr. GUARillA. No es bastante dar preferencia al filipino, si no estamos seguros que el filipino puede llenar esa ruta. ;, C6mo vamos a correr el riesgo de que puedan entrar par esa puerta las extranjeros? El Bill no es, acaso, proteccionista? Mr. MARCOS. Well, gentleman from Sorsogon, that is the very thing now that we want to approve. That is the very reason why we should give preference to the Filipinos. Sr. GUARillA. <Esta seguro Su Sefioria de que las rutas que ese comite va a abrir, serAn cubiertas par navieros filipinos? Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Sorsogon, that shows that you do not have faith in your own country men. You doubt it now, although you have not given them a chance. Why not give them a chance before doubting their ability? Sr. GUARINA. La consecuencia es falsa. Mr. MARCOS. I am sorry I have made that conclusion, but that is the best way I can express what I think of it. (Continuing). Now, granting for the sake of argument, Mr. Speaker, that the inter-island service is unsafe, inadequate and unsatisfactory as proven by the Negros disaster which they have continuously mentioned, I am pleaded to see that those who are greatly concern~d, those who have no m?.ans of transportation from Manila to their homeland, are even supporting the bill. That shows, Mr. Speaker, that they are willing to make it known to the members of this august body and to the Filipino people in general that it matters not whether their lives are put in a very dangerous condition as long as it 2072 DIARIO DE SESIONES is for their country's sake. Their stand means that at all costs they want in to preserve this law for .their countrymen. And in this conection, I remember that immortal statement of Mabini, which runs thus: "Love thy coun·try next to God and thine honor, and more than thyself, for she is the sole patrimony of thy race, the only legacy of thy forefathers, and the only hope of thy descendants. To her thou owest thy life, thy liberty and thy God." Sr. GUARINA. Sefior Presidente, para otras preguntas al orador. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Mr. MARCOS. Yes, sir. Sr. GUARINA. Naveg6 alguna vez Mabini, con excepci6n de su viaje a Guam? Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Sorsogon, I already understand what you mean. I am not quoting :Mabini here as one who had navigated, but I am quoting Mabini as a man who was a patriot and a martyr to his country, and who enjoined us, his country men, to "love your country more than ~·ourself;" I quoted his precept to show that it has guided those persons who are depending nationalism although they cannot reach their home except by boat. They say : "We are willing to find our deathbed under the sea as long as we can preserve the Philippines for the Filipinos." Sr. GUARINA. ;.Fue naviero alguna vez Mabini7 Mr. MARCOS. I do not know, but that is the very thing that I have in mind. Gentleman from Sorsogon, let me repeat that I am not mentioning Mabini as a navigator, but I am mentioning him as a patriot whose example as well as his precept are being exemplified by some legislators in this chamber. Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for some questions? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Does the gentleman from !locos Norte yield to the gentleman from Zambales? Mr. MARCOS. With pleasure. Mr. LABRADOR. Does the gentleman from !locos Norte believe that it is sane patriotism to let his country men die and find their death-bed in the bottom of the sea? Mr. MARCOS. Well, as I already said, gentleman from Zambales, there are many legislators here who are favoring the Briones bill, and thege, legislators are included in that group of persons whose lives are put to danger because of the alleged unsafe interisland service. Mr. LABRADOR. And your honor would be willing to go with them to the bottom of the sea just to protect the Filipino shipping? Mr. MARCOS. Your honor, if there is any necessity for any Filipino to find his death-bed in the bottom of the sea for the purpose of preserving the Philippines for the Filipinos, or in other words, of preserving the shipping business in the hands of nationals and the natural resources in the hands of the present gep.eration, our posterity and our children's children, I sincerely state before this august body, before my conscience and before God that I am ready to die for my country. (Long applause.) El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. Estan prohibidos los aplausos. . La Mesa hara desalojar los pasillos, si vuelven a aplaudir. Mr. LABRADOR. But what is the need of sacrificing the life, your .very dear life, especially in this Legislature,-what is thE: use of sacrificing this life, if we could save it for a more noble purpose and service in this Legislature? Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Zambales, you should not forget that we proceeded with the premise that we want to preserve the Philippines for the Filipinos. The shipping business must be preserved in the hand of the nationals in order to safeguard the foundation of our national existence. The Philippines being composed of more than a thousand islands the communication by sea constitutes the vital arteries of the national organism. Now, with all these points in view, I cannot see why I should be questioned for voicing my patriotic sentiment. Mr. LABRADOR. So that you would be willing to let these ships belonging to the foreigners continue indefinitely, at the same time exposing the lives of many people just to save your principle, or theory of protectionism. Do you believe that many of the people would be willing to go with you to find their graves in the bottom of the ocean for the sake of patriotism? Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Zambales, with that very question of yours, I feel that you question the spirit by which a person shows his patriotism. Are you not aware of the fact that there are different ways by which a person can show his love to his country? I honestly and sincerely believe that I serve my country if I am offered at the altar as a sacrifice for the preservation of the shipping business in the hands of the nationals, a thing which is equivalent to the preservation of the foundation of our national existence. The trouble with the gentleman from Zambales is that he does not take into consideration the far-reaching consequences of the falling of the shipping business into the hands of the foreigners. Let me reiterate my stand that the means of communication by sea, in a country like ours, constitutes the vital arteries of the national organism. Once it falls into the hands of the foreigners, the foundation of our national existence is destroyed. Mr. LABRADOR. So you believe that you will be rendering a great service to your country by going to the bottom of the sea, just to preserve the theory or principle of protectionism? Mr. MARCOS. The fact that the gentleman from Zambales continuously pounds on the question of my willingness to go to the bottom of the sea for the sake of protectionism, I no longer doubt that his intention is to make fun out of my statement. Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman already forgotten the fact that different persons have different ways of expressing themselves? I am not so absent-minded as to have said that I am willing to go to the bottom of the sea just.for the sake of these old ships; what I said was that I am willing to go to the bottom of LEGISLATURA FILIPINA 2073 the sea to preserve the Philippines for the Filipinos. The gentleman must understand that the moment the shipping business falls into the hands of the foreigners, on that moment we give away the defense and life of our country. Does not the gentleman from Zambales still understand, after several repetitions, that I have in mind the far-reaching consequences of the falling of the shipping business into the hands of the foreigners? Mr. PAREDES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The gentleman may yield if he so desires. Mr. MARCOS. Willingly. Mr. PAREDES. Do I understand the gentleman from Ilocos Norte to say that many of the gentlemen, or practically all of the gentlemen who spoke in favor of the measure are willing to find their graves at the bottom of the sea for protectionism? And do all these Representatives have the right to invite their constituents to find also that same grave without consulting them first? Mr. MARCOS. Mr. Speaker, I have answered all questions seriously but I am afraid those who are interpellating me are just doing it for fun. That statement, however, does not refer to the gentleman from Abra because I can see that he is serious. Gentleman from Abra, please bear in mind that I do not invite nor shall I invite my constituents to joint me in finding their graves at the bottom of the sea. What I said was that I am willing to find my grave at the bottom of the sea to preserve the Philippines for the Filipinos, and to preserve the foundation of our national existence. Sr. OPPUS. Seiior Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Mr. MARCOS. Mr. Speaker, for an information. How many more minutes have I? El PRESII'ENTE PRO TEMPORE. Quince minutos mas. Sr. OPPUS. Sefior Presidente, para algunas preguntas al or ad or. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Sr. MARCOS. Si, sefior. Sr. OPPUS. Continuando la pregunta de! Caballero par Abra, i,no cree Su Sen.aria que es un egoismo de su parte el ser el Unico patriota y morir solo en el mar, sin tener el valor de invitar a otros para que se hundan consigo en el fondo del mar? · Mr. MARCOS. Gentleman from Leyte, I am sorry to say that we do not agree on that case, for you are no longer following the principles of logic. I do claim that I am willing to go to the bottom of the sea to preserve the Philippines for the Filipinos and to preserve the foundation of our national existence. We who favor the measure are being branded as inconsistent to their constituents, and those who are against the bill are patriotic. Those who are against the measure should not claim for a monopoly of patriotism. We are in favor of the bill because we honestly believe that it will preserve the shipping business in the hands of the nationals-a thing which preserves the foundation of our national existence. Sr. OPPUS. i,Su Sefioria concurre con la opini6n de! ii ustre Senador por Cebll, Sr. Rodriguez, en el sentido de que prefiere una banca filipina a un vapor extranj era? Mr. MARCOS. Exactly. The Senator from Cebu has a way of viewing the question, and I have also my own. Sr. OPPUS. Lo que queria saber es si Su Sefioria concurre. Mr. MARCOS. That is what I said. I have a diff~rent way of viewing the question. I did not say I am not in accord, but I have a different way of comparing the question. Sr. OPPUS. Esta bien. Mr. DACANAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for some questions? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The gentleman may yield, if he so desires. Mr. MARCOS. With pleasure. Mr. DACANAY. As I understand in the course of the speech and answers of the gentleman from Ilocos Norte, he subscribed to an amendment which would allow the foreign shippers to improve their ships, but limiting their activities for a period of twenty years. Do I understand the gentleman from Ilocos Norte to subscribe to such an amendment? Mr. MARCOS. Not only to subscribe to an amendment. We have presented a bill to substitute the present bill that we are now discussing. Mr. DACANAY. And because of this amendment, do I understand the gentleman from 'Ilocos Norte to oppose the proposition embodied in the present bill under our . consideration which would open or may tend to open the other lines at present covered by Filipino shippers that would make it liable to be placed under foreign hands or foreign shippers? Mr. MARCOS. I did not say that. Mr. DACANAY. Do I understand the gentleman from Ilocos Norte to be opposed to the idea embodied in the present bill providing for an investigation on the part of the committee? There would be a necessity of new ships or additional tonnage, and in case the Filipino shippers cannot cover the same the foreign shippers may enter or may supply that additional tonnage. Do I understand you to be opposed to that proposition in the bill? Mr. MARCOS. Well, I am not going to answer you categorically, gentleman from La Union, because I know you are an intelligent man, and it is up to you to deduce my stand from the amendment I have presented. Mr. DACANAY. Of course, that part of the bill has nothing to de> with the amendment of the gentleman from Ilocos Norte. Mr. MARCOS. That is why I say that you can deduce my stand from the amendment I have presented. Mr. DACANAY. In other words you are opposed to the measure in so far as enabling the foreign shippers to enter a service which cannot be covered by the Filipino shipowners. Do I understand you to subscribe to that idea? 2074 DIARIO DE SESIONES Mr. MARCOS. Well, it is in the amendment that I have presented. Any doubt which you have and any thing which you cannot understand can be explained by the amendment which we have presented. And I believe you also signed that amendment. Mr. DACANAY. In other words I understand that the gentleman from Ilocos Norte is opposed to the creation of a board of investigation to investigate the shipping conditions in the Philippine Islands, but if we are to legislate here we should limit our legislation to enabling foreign shipping companies now operating in the Islands to improve their present ships without any preferential right to be given to the Filipinos. . Mr. MARCOS. Without any preferential right to be given to Filipinos? Mr. DACANAY. That is the amendment as explained here by the gentleman from Abra. Mr. MARCOS. Well, I view it in a different way because the moment that you make me understand that it does not give preferential right to Filipinos I would oppose. Did you read the amendment carefully? Mr. DACANAY. I am sorry to state that I am not one of those who subscribe to the amendment. Mr. MARCOS. 'If you were not one and if you did not have the chance to read the amendment, I cannot see how you can argue with me an amendment that you have not yet read. Mr. DACANAY. Does not the gentleman from Ilocos Norte believe that an amendment limiting the foreign shipping companies now operating in the Philippine Islands to improve their ships without touching any other lines or any other activities in the present shipping service is a more protectionist legislation that could be enacted by this Legislature than to approve in its entirety the Briones bill which would tend to open the other lines as well as would enable the foreign shippers to increase their tonnage as well as their number of ships that are plying in the Philippine Islands. Mr. MAR.Cos. I am not going to answer your question, gentleman from La Union, but with your permission, permit me to ask this question: What is it that you are trying to extract from me so that I may satisfy you? Mr. DACANAY. I just want to have the opinion of the gentleman from Ilocos ·Norte, if he thinks that those who are advocating the improvement of the present ships of the foreign companies by limiting the number of years that they may stay in the service are any less protectionists than those who are advocating the Briones bill. Mr. MARCOS. Well, as I said, that is a question of appreciation or interpretation, gentleman from La Union. Mr. Speaker, I should like to go ahead with my peroration. Sr. CARRANCEJA. Sefior Presidente, para algunas preguntas al orador. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. El orador puede contestar, si le place. Sr. MARCOS. Si, sefior. Sr. CARRANCEJA. Su Seiioria se ha estado refiriendo a barcos extranj eros. ;. A que barcos extranj eros se refiere Su Sefioria? Mr. MARCOS. The Tabacalera and Y nchausti. 'Sr. CARRANCEJA. ;. Pero ignora Su Sefioria que desde el afio 1918 esos barcos, en virtud del bill de cabotaje que nosotros aprobamos, quedaron convertidos en barcos casi de ciudadania filipina, y por tanto, parte Su Sefioria de un principio falso al hablar de barcos extranj eros, porque no existe ninglin barco extranj ero en el rio PAsig? Mr. MARCOS. Well, I am sorry I differ with the gentleman from Camarines Norte, because the moment they are "semi"-the phrase you used was "casi de ciudadania filipina"-they are not real citizens of the Philippines. Sr. CARRANCEJA. He usado las palabras "casi de ciudadania filipina," porque la palabra ciudadania se refiere a personas y los barcos son coSas y no personae. Mr. MARCOS. But, gentleman from Camarines Norte, do you want me to understand that the Y nchausti and Tabacalera are citizens of the Philippine Islands? Sr. CARRANCEJA. Los peticionarios puede que no lo sean, pero los barcos han quedado filipinos. Mr. MARCOS. I thought, gentleman from Camarines Norte, that we are talking about the ships. But even then, may I ask what is the nationality of the owners of these ships? Sr. CARRANCEJA. La culpa la tiene la Legislatura, la Legislatura de 1918, en haber convertido en filipinos los barcos de matricula filipina. Mr. MARCOS. It only extended the right, but it did not extend the citizenship. It is a different matter. Sr. CARRANCEJA. ;.Que banderas llevaban esos barcos? Las banderas americana y filipina. Las nacionalidades se asignan por las banderas. Es asi que las banderas que llevan esos barcos son las banderas americana y filipina, luego esos barcos son filipinos. Mr. MARCOS. I view it the other way, gentleman from Carnarines Norte, because you must understand that the corporation is controlled by foreigners, and naturally the properties are properties of foreigners. They cannot be properties of nationals. They cannot be properties of the citizens of the Philippine Islands. (Continuing.) 'Then, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, commerce is in the hands of foreigners; troops and battalions of foreigners are invading our shores to transform our virgin lands into verdant fields; regiments of foreigners are invading our shores to harvest our repining crops. We can see that foreign capital is now invading our shores, and the only thing left in the hands of the nationals is the shipping business, and still others would want to amend the law in such a way that the shipping business would fall into the hands of foreigners. Mr. Speaker, I invite my countrymen to cast off that hypnotic spell of the seeming greatness of heart and bigness of soul of the foreigners. They act in a gentleman-like manner to all the Filipinos, yet we must understand that they are trying to control everything in our country, which finally will make us foreigners in our own country. I invite my countrymen not to allow the inmense rivalries of business and politics, the retarding shocks of conflicting interests and claims, and the natural preLEGISLATURA FILIPINA 2075 judices and perversities of our people, to bar our, way towards patriotic consecration. The question of preserving the inter-island business to the Filipinos and the question of preserving the natural resources for our countrymen, for this generation, for the coming generation, and for our children's children, need the disinterested sacrifice of every individual. This question needs the concentration of all the energies and efforts of the Filipinos. It needs the commendation of every heart. It needs the sanction of every conscience of all the Filipino people. Mr. Speaker, the proper solution of this measure necessitates that the Filipinos should forget party alignment, that all parties should unite, and with a united front of 12,000,000 Filipinos, they will be able to assert more effectively before the world that the Philippines should be for the Filipinos. Sr. KAPUNAN. Sencillamente, para insinuar a Su Se:fioria que expresara, si no tiene inconveniente, la idea que tiene de la cuesti6n, de si debemos conceder o no a las navieros extranjeros la facultad de cambiar sus buques o el tonelaje de los mismos. Mr. MARCOS. How many more minutes have I, Mr. Speaker? The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The gentleman from Ilocos Norte has one more minute. Mr. MARCOS. Well, as I stated, gentleman from Leyte, if the Filipinos cannot do it, then we need the improvement of this interisland service by foreigners. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. Tiene la palabra el Caballero por Leyte. DISCURSO EN CONTRA DEL SR. OPPUS (Este discurso se publicarti como apindice en el nUmero correspondiente al 9 de noviembre de 1927.) El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. Lease el mensaj e de! Senado sobre el Proyecto de Ley No. 113 de! mismo. El CLERK DE ACTAS, leyendo: MENSAJE DEL SENADO MANILA, octubre 1'1, 192'1 SENOR PRESlDENTE: Se me ha ordenado que ponga en conocimiento de esa Honorable Camara qu~ el Senado ha disentido de las enmiendmi rle la C:imara dl~ Repre~cntantc~ r.I Proyecto de Ley del Senado No. 113, titulado: ra~~~:~a~~:s adb~11~J: <~bll~~i~r~~e!3d~n~i:~~~~~ i~i;~~~·~~ dispone las condiciones para su funcionamiento, y que provee penas en easo de infracci6n." Y por tal motive solicita una confereneia con la Camara de Representantes sobre los votes en discordia de ambas Camaras, habiendo nombrado come representantes suyos en dicha confercncia a los Senadores Salazar, Ledesma y Veloso. Muy respetuosamente, (Fdo.) FAUSTINO AGUILAR Secretario del Senado Al Honorable PRESIDENTE DE LA CAMARA DE REPRESENTANTES. Sr. ALCAZAR.EN. Seiior Presidente, el Comite de Navegaci6n insiste en sus enmiendas a dicho proyecto de ley y pide se nombre un Comite de conferencia. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. i. Hay alguna objeci6n a este informe? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobado. Esta en orden el nombramiento de! Comito de Conferencia. COMITE DE CONFERENCIA SOBRE EL S. 113 Sr. NEPOMUCENO. Seiior Presidente, el Comito de Control propone el nombramiento de los Sres. Alcazaren, Torralba 'y Ortiz, para formar el Comite de conferencia por parte de la Camara sobre el Proyecto de Ley No. 113 de! Senado. EI PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. i. Hay alguna objeci6n? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobado. Sr. GULLAS. Sefior Presidente, pido que los otros asuntos sefialados para hoy se consideren en la sesi6n siguiente. El PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. i, Hay alguna obj eci6n? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobado. El PRESIDENTE. Lease el Proyecto de Resoluci6n No. 66 de la Camara. RESOLUCI6N DE CONDOLENCIA El CLERK DE ACTAS, leyendo: PROYECTO DE RESOLUCI6N NO. 66 DE LA cAMARA [Preeentado por el Reprcsentante Leuterio] RESOLUCION EXPRESANDO LA CONDOLENCIA DE LA CAMARA DE REPRESENTANTES POR EL FALLECIMIENTO DEL HONORABLE PABLO GUZMAN, DIPUTADO QUE FUJ!: A LA PRIMERA ASAMBLEA FILIPINA. PoR CUANTO el Hon. Pablo Guzman, Diputado que fue a la primera Asamblea Filipina, ha fallecido el dia primero de noviembre de mil noveeientos veintisiete en la ciudad de Manila; PoR CUANTO el fin ado Hon. Pablo Guzman ha prestado ref :v;~!:~a 5~~:W!~~i6~ ~:iio;' s:~r~:~~ai~~aT::id::e~~b~ Kli~ pi no; Por tanto, Se resuelve, Expresar, come por la presente se expresa, el profundo pesar eon que ha sido recibida por la Camara de Representantes la noticia clel fallecimiento de! Honorable Pablo Guzman, Diputado que fue a la primera Asamblea Filipina, ocurrido en la ciudad de Manila el dia primero de novicmbre de mil novccientos veintisiete; Se resuelve, ademds, Que se envie copia de esta Resoluci6n al Senado de Filipinas y a la familia del finado, y que una vez adoptada esta resoluci6n se levante la sesion en seiial de dueJo. Adoptada, Sr. MENDOZA. Pido que se apruebe por unanimidad el proyecto de Resoluci6n. El PRESIDENTE. ;, Hay alguna objeci6n al proyecto de Resoluci6n? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobado por unanimidad. LEVANTAMIENTO DE LA SESI6N De conformidad con la precedente Resoluci6n, se levanta la sesi6n en seiial de duelo. Eran las 8.47 p. m.