Page 1 of 10
CHAPTER E THE PHILIPPINE FABLE In the Texas State Historical Association handbook in the entry for Hatton William Sumners is the following: In 1934, at the request of the resident commissioner of the Philippines Islands and the urging of Franklin Roosevelt, Sumners drafted a constitution for the Philippines Islands. However, though there are historical records that Sumners was asked to help write the Philippine Constitution of 1934, there is no actual record or reporting that he did made any contribution to the writing of the Philippine Constitution of 1934. The following sentence in the same entry for Sumners does say: As a result of these and other activities, he developed a reputation as an authority on constitutional law.1 The claim that Sumners “drafted” a constitution for the Philippines was repeated in obituaries for him when he died. A DMN editorial stated, “… drafted a constitution for the Philippines …”2 In another obituary piece run in the DMN the same day, “SelfEducated Lawyer Sumners Was an Authority on the Constitution.” In support of this claim the article states, “… and helped the Philippines write a constitution.”3 Posthumously this assertion that Sumners was involved in writing the Philippines Constitution has been the basis of the claim that he was a great authority on the American Constitution. In a May 27, 1934 Associated Press (AP) article it was reported that Sumners had been, “asked to help to help the Filipinos draw up a constitution for use when the islands are free.” The article also reports: His invitation to attend the constitutional convention – on July 4, or July 30 – was cabled from the Philippines to Pedro Guevara, Philippine Commissioner, by V. Singson Encarnacion, Secretary of Agriculture, at the request of President Manuel Quezon of the Philippine Senate.4 From a latter correspondence of Sumners, Sumners claims that the AP story was in error, and that he was only asked to attend, not help write the Philippine Constitution, a
1
Monroe, Mary Catherine, “Sumners Hatton William (1875-1962),” Texas State Historical Association Handbook of Texas, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/sumners-hatton-william, 9/28/2020. 2 Editorial, “Hatton W. Sumners,” DMN, April 20, 1926, page 4. 3 No author, “Self-Educated Lawyer Was an Authority on the Constitution,” DMN, April 20, 1962, page 13. 4 Associated Press, “Dallas Man’s Aid Asked in Drafting Filipinos’ Charter,” DMN, May 28, 1934, page 3.
Page 2 of 10
reporting error which caused controversy in the Philippines and ultimately resulted in Sumners not attending. However, this claim of Sumners is subject to doubt also. The DMN in a July 23, 1934 editorial represented the case as the Filipinos and President Roosevelt “little short of insistence” as greatly desiring Sumners “of helping to write the new Constitution for the Philippines.” This is because the DMN editorial claims: … but the Filipinos and the President seem to think that he is the best qualified person, as an authority on constitutional law, to help prepare the Constitution, so they insist on his acceptance. Further in the editorial: It means that his character and fairness are clearly recognized by a people that have questioned the justice of the American attitude. If Mr. Sumners’ standing as a constitutional lawyer were not high, the islands would look elsewhere for their man. Dallas shares in the pride that a son, to whom it has given continued evidence to contribute to the history of the other side of the world. The editorial concludes that this is a very good reason that Sumners should be re-elected to congress.5 However, Sumners wasn’t asked by the Filipinos as will be explained, but this misreporting, that he was going to be writing or drafting or helping to write the Philippines constitution is one of the sources of the idea that Sumners was a great constitutional expert. It does appear that Sumners was asked by Roosevelt. In the Sumners papers at the Dallas Historical Society (DHS) in one box is material related to him being asked. In it is a formal letter on White House stationary, from President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Sumners, dated June 19, 1934 as follows: My dear Hatton: I have just learned that you have been invited to help in the formulation of a Constitution for the Philippines. In view of your long experience with the problems of the Islands and your thorough knowledge of the legal questions involved, I am going to ask you to accept this commission if you can do so without too greatly inconveniencing yourself. It seems to me that it will give you an opportunity for real constructive service and I hope you can see your way clear to go. 5
Editorial, “Job for Hatton Sumners,” DMN, June 23, 1934, page 2.
Page 3 of 10
With all best wishes, Very sincerely yours,6 That Roosevelt would think that Sumners, a white supremacist, who frequently invoked an interpretation to defeat any and all civil rights legislation including that of federal anti-lynching legislation, should be involved in the writing of a constitution for a nonwhite people is not so surprising. Less than eight years later on Feb. 19, 1942 he ordered the internment in camps of Japanese Americans, resulting in the destruction of communities. The civil rights movement didn’t move under Roosevelt except perhaps very incremental steps and only towards the very end of his administration and even then, only with the blunt force threat of African American labor leader A. Philip Randolph to take action if he didn’t do something. Though Roosevelt writes, “In view of your long experience with the problems of the Islands …” the Sumners papers at the DHS have just a few items, three or four, related to the Philippines. The author of this paper did donate $1,000 to have some new materials that had been received from Roosevelt’s secretary, Elmore Whitehurst and others organized, but that has been held up by COVID19 pandemic. Though it isn’t expected that this material will particularly have anything related to the Philippines and might have nothing related to the Philippines. It does appear that Sumners did send some suggestions regarding the Philippine Constitution to the Philippines. Reporting July 10, 1934 in the DMN, is an article that reports: Sumners expects to go to the Philippines in connection with formulation of the Philippine Constitution but his plans will be announced in Dallas following the July 28 primary election. He has mailed to the constitutional convention at Manila a memorandum containing suggestions for inclusion in the new docket. He hopes to reach Manila in time to assist in the presentation of the final draft.7 This does suggest that Sumners did intend to being involved with the drafting of the Philippines constitution. There is no further reporting in the DMN on Sumners and the Philippines. In the Sumners papers at the Dallas Historical Society is a typed undated manuscript of the correspondence between Sumners and Pedro Guevara, Resident Commissioner from the Philippines in the House of Representatives. 6 7
Franklins Delano Roosevelt to HWS, June 19, 1934, DHS Box A8149.4.1.2. No author, “Hatton Sumners Leaves for Home in Dallas,” DMN, July 10, 1934, page 3.
Page 4 of 10
The history states, “Congressman Sumners was invited to go to the Philippines and help draft the new constitution. To Hon. Pedro Guevara, Resident Commissioner from the Philippines in the House of Representatives, he wrote:” The following is the letter: May 30, 1934.
Hon. Pedro Guevara, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My dear Colleague: I tremendously appreciate the invitation extended to me by you on behalf of President Quezon to visit the Philippines this summer as a guest of the Philippine Government. My circumstances are such at this time that it is impossible for me to reply definitely to this invitation, however, I shall make every effort to reply definitely to this invitation, however, I shall make every effort to arrange my affairs so as to be able to accept. It will be very interesting indeed, if it be possible for me to see the Philippine Constitutional Convention at work. Maybe in some remote way I could be of some service to the Philippine people as they lay the foundation of their governmental superstructure. Besides, I am so much want to visit your people whom you have so ably represented at the seat of this government. Will you please convey to the Philippine Government proper expressions of my appreciation for the invitation extended, and advise of my purpose to accept that invitation if it is at all possible. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely your friend, Hatton W. Sumners The reply is as follows: Honorable Hatton W. Sumners, House of Representatives,
Page 5 of 10
Washington, D.C. My dear Colleague: Your favor of May thirtieth is at hand, and I am deeply appreciative of your willingness to accept the invitation extended to you by the Philippine Government through Mr. Quezon, President of the Philippine Senate. In extending you this invitation, the Philippine people want to take advantage of your knowledge and experience in constitutional law. Also they long for your assistance in the proceedings of the Philippines Constitutional Convention which will meet on July 30th, 1934, and for your enlightenment on the fundamentals of the constitution to be formulated for the Philippines. Knowing as I do your continued devotion to the interests of mankind, I do not hesitate to predict that finally you will go to the Philippines Islands. With kindest personal regards, I am, Yours very truly, Pedro Guevara The manuscript then has the letter President Roosevelt wrote to Sumners. The manuscript then explains that Sumners didn’t go to the Philippines and why. Mr. Sumners was anxious to make the trip to the Philippines. Three developments, however, combined to keep him from going. First, the session of Congress extended far beyond that was anticipated. Then Sterling P. Strong, who was serving as Congressman at large, announced his candidacy in opposition to Sumners. The State had redistricted and Strong had to choose between running against Sumners and staying home voluntarily. The Primary election date was only four days before the date set for the constitutional convention to convene. The voyage required a month. Sumners, even though he was reasonably confident of victory, did not, as he expressed it, “want to be on the other side of the world in the middle of my campaign for reelection.” The newspapers of the District pointed to the honor which had been reflected on the District by the invitation and editorially urged him to go. The third development, which was probably most controlling, was the political situation which boiled in the Islands during the campaign for the selection of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The opponents of the Quezon party howled against Americans writing their constitution. The minority charged that the majority were incapable of drafting a constitution and demanded that the task be given to them. A foolishly written dispatch from a correspondent in Washington for a Philippine newspaper had given the impression that Mr.
Page 6 of 10
Sumners was writing a constitution for the Philippines in Washington and would send it to the convention for adoption, creating an unhappy effect. Even across the Pacific Ocean Mr. Sumners’ keen political nose was able to sense the situation, and the delicate if not difficult situation in which he would be placed if he should follow his inclination to go to the Islands. Finally he determined not to go, but before leaving Washington for Texas he completed a draft of suggestions for the Philippine Constitution. We worked all day the Fourth of July completing it, - I did the typing – and at eight o’clock in the evening it was mailed to Quezon with this letter: Washington, D.C. July 4, 1934 Hon. Manuel L. Quezon President, Philippine Senate, Manila, P.I. My dear Mr. Quezon: I beg to transmit herewith suggestions to the Philippine Constitutional Convention. Limited by insufficient time, and deprived of local atmosphere and the advised judgment of your leaders, I have not attempted a complete document. We are working against time now to get this draft into the mail tonight in order that there may be a chance of it reaching you by the time the convention assembles. I would much appreciate your having the enclosed gone over for the structural and other errors and then making such disposition of it as is proper in the premises, and please be good enough to make my apology and explanation. I regret the circumstances which have detained me here and thereby deprived me of the opportunity deliberately to do this work on the way over as I had intended to do. The mandatory provisions required by Public Act 127 of the 73rd Congress may be considered later and added as an ordinance to the Constitution. Please accept my most since thanks to you personally for the privilege of trying to be useful to your people in connection with the
Page 7 of 10
framing of their Constitution. You are measuring up to a great opportunity to render a great service. This communication and inclosure is being mailed for transmission via San Francisco, and copies are being mailed to go via Seattle and Vancouver. Very respectfully yours, Hatton W. Sumners The manuscript then discusses Sumners ideas and how much was incorporated into the Philippine Constitution. A comparison of the draft which Mr. Sumners sent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines as finally agreed to by the Convention make it evident that the draft was consulted although its plan was not followed in many major respects and the political situation in the convention made it unwise to bring the draft into the open. The Filipinos adopted a unicameral legislature whereas Mr. Sumners had incorporated the traditional bicameral system. The draft which Mr. Sumners sent to the Philippines is very illuminating as to his own ideas of good constitutional construction. He had first a preamble, followed by a definition of the national territory. Next came a bill of rights. Then a section followed dealing with citizenship and suffrage. The provisions setting up the Legislature follows pretty largely the provisions of the United States Constitution. With regard to special sessions he provided: “The Congress may be called in special session at any time by the President for action on such specific subjects he may designate. No special session shall continue longer than ____ days and no regular session shall continue longer than ____ days, exclusive of Sundays.” To this he added a not in parentheses: “(I am not sure of wisdom of limiting length of sessions by constitutional provisions). Another not in parentheses disclosed a change Sumners would make in the United States Constitution. The note said: “(Regardless of length of terms determined upon for Senators and Representatives, suggest consider the advisability of having a new Senate and House elected at the same time the President is elected. There are advantages and disadvantages to this arrangement. It would make the government more responsive to the public will and better equipped to effectuate it. It would, however, remove, in theory at least,
Page 8 of 10
a hindrance to immature and impetuous action. If I were rewriting our own constitution now I would incorporate such an arrangement.)8 The pages stop here. With COVID19 I can’t go back and see if the pages are somewhere misplaced. It seems that Sumners didn’t draft a constitution for the Philippines, but instead wrote some suggestions which he mailed to Quezon and for which the writer of this manuscript thinks he sees in the Philippine Constitution where Sumners suggestions were adopted. Though given that Sumners suggested a bicameral legislature and the Filipinos adopted a unicameral legislature it doesn’t seem like Sumners had any real input, but until Sumners suggestions are found, if they are anywhere to be found, a definitive judgement can’t be made. However, the claim that Sumners was a great constitutional expert on the claim that he was asked to help with the Philippine constitution is without merit. Sumners was the chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary committee and a constitution would need to be accepted by the U.S. Government. The fawning and flattering of a colonial subject to a racist imperial master is hardly a confirmation of being a great constitutional scholar. The Philippine American war is one of the great humanitarian crimes of the American nation which resulted in the death of over 20,000 Filipino combatants and as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians dying from violence, famine, and disease when the American military crushed their independence movement and the First Philippine Republic. The American term for the conflict was the Philippine Insurrection to avoid recognizing that it was a war with the Filipinos and their republic.9 The city of Dallas was fairly enthusiastic about the American invasion of the Philippines and published accounts by local men serving in the Philippines. This is an extract of the article, “From Across the Seas,” April 11, 1900 in the DMN where the writer, Rudolph Gunner Jr. of Dallas refers to Filipinos as Negroes: We embarked in a hurry, as everybody was looking for “gore,” and we got it too. The negroes began firing on us before we landed, but thanks to their bad marksmanship, only hit one man. We cleaned them out in short order and took the town, liberating twenty-seven Spanish prisoners, who dropped on their knees and thanked us for their deliverance. Some of them had been in captivity over a year. We stayed at San Fabian over night, sleeping out in a drenching tropical rain, and marched early next morning towards Santo Tomas; found insurgent barracks 8 9
Typed manuscript, DHS A8053 5.1.1. The “A8053” has the “053” number scribbled over. “The Philippine-American War, 1899-1902,” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/war, 9/29/2020.
Page 9 of 10
there, but the “Goo Goos” must have gotten win of our coming, for the place was deserted. … Most of the damage inflicted upon us was from sharpshooters midden in cocoanut trees on the road. But we soon found that out and poured volley after volley into them, and you should have seen the niggers drop out of there. It reminded me of squirrel hunting…. I went over that road with another man with dispatches and the stench from the dead Filipinos was something awful and the sight sickening, as some of the bodies were partly devoured by buzzards and large lizards, some of the latter being from three to five feet in length, and I was thankful when I got through there.10 It has to be considered that not Rudolph Gunner Jr. write this letter, but that his friend W.F. Somers considered it would be a letter that would be received with approval from the people of Dallas and that the editors of the DMN would agree. This attitude wasn’t unique to Gunner. In another article, “Fighting the Filipinos: Lieutenant Arthur P. Watts’ Interesting Letter,” DMN, Jan. 28, 1990 repeatedly calls the Filipinos “niggers” with quotation marks indicating that he is intentionally making this reference and without quotation marks also. From his account: For the past two or three weeks we have been sallying out and mixing matters with the “niggers” for an hour or so. These engagements were mostly made to gain information as to their numbers and position. …. The remainder of our line having reached this river, halted also and began to pour volleys into the niggers immediately in their front. The “niggers,” seeing that there was no firing from the barricade where we were, began to take up positions directly in front of us. …. Our men – that is, my men – commenced to cheer and jeer the niggers in this manner to locate them, …11
10 11
Gunner, Rudolph, Jr., “From Across the Seas,” DMN, April 11, 1900, page 10. Watts, Arthur P., “Fighting the Filipinos,” DMN, Jan. 28, 1900, page 7.
Page 10 of 10
And so on. There are other letters like this where the Filipinos are called niggers. 12 A letter letter by a Capt. E.G. Shields, published in the DMN explained: Six hundred “Filipos” – the boys call them “niggers” – intrenched were attacked by the Third cavalry and … Shields adopts this terminology for the rest of his letter after explaining it.13 That the DMN editors could believe that the Filipino people would sincerely eagerly seek American advice as opposed to elites seeking to curry favor is a reflection on the editors.
12
Maxwell, Bob, “One of Funston’s Fighters,” DMN June 28, 1899, page 10; Slack, Harry L., “What Harry Slack Says,” DMN, July 20, 1899, page 7. 13 Shields, E.G., “Texas Boys under Fire,” DMN, Feb. 25, 1900, page 21.