Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

APERTURA DE LA SESIÓN

Se abre la sesión a las 9:30 a.m., ocupando el estrado el Presidente, Hon. Claro M. Recto.

EL PRESIDENTE: Se abre la sesión.

DISPENSACION DE LA LECTURA DE LA LISTA Y DEL ACTA

MR. ESCAREAL: Mr. President, I move that the reading of the roll and of the minutes of the last session be dispensed with.

EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Hay objeción a la mocion? (Silencio.) Queda aprobada.

DESPACHO DE LOS ASUNTOS QUE ESTÁN SOBRE LA MESA DEL PRESIDENTE

EL PRESIDENTE: Léanse los documentos recibidos.

EL SECRETARIO los lee.

SR. KAPUNAN: Señor Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE: Señor Delegado por Leyte.

SR. KAPUNAN: Pido que se le conceda la palabra al Delegado Monseñor Castro.

DISCURSO DEL DELEGADO CASTRO

SR. CASTRO: Señor Presidente, señores Delegados: La desbordante animacion que reina en ésta augusta Asamblea es un justo motivo de alegria nacional Si antes el hablar de libertad era un crimen imperdonable que llevo al sacrificio de su vida a muchos apostoles de nuestra libertad, ahora la misma America nos guia a seguir sin desmayos el escabroso camino de nuestra redencion final.

Dios, que vela por la suerte de los pueblos, ha movido al Congreso americano a otorgarnos, en un rasgo de liberalidad sin precedente en la historia de las colonias, la realizacion de nuestro ideal disponiendo en la Ley Tydings-McDuffie concedernos la independencia despues de un propuesto periodo transitorio de diez años, para entrenarnos en la completa administracion de nuestro pueblo, con el grandioso privilegio de guiarnos por leyes confeccionadas por nosotros mismos en una Constitucion que pinte fielmente el genio, el caracter y los ideales de nuestra raza. En honor de quienes lo merecen, debo maniféstar que ésta conquista se debe al irreductible teson de nuestros caudillos nacionales con la co-operacion de los elementos vivos de nuestra patria. En la Constitucion que formemos debemos ingerir la mayor dosis posible de nuestra ansia de libertad y de nacionalizacion. Pues el pajaro encerrado, una vez abierta la jaula, vuela presuroso para volver a reinar en el espacio para respirar la dulzura del aire libre y contemplar las maravillas de la naturaleza. Pero por la logica de las cosas cualquier beneficio ésta en paralelo con algun deber o compromiso. Esto nos aconseja y asegura en la confeccion de nuestra Constitucion porque la Ley Tydings-McDuffie, como cualquier medida que trate de importantisimo asunto, es de suyo complicada como la maravillosa y delicada organizacion de nuestro cuerpo. y da lugar a ampliar y variadas interpretaciones que dividen las opiniones.

La cuestion ocasionada por la Ley Tydings-McDuffie ya nos empalaga, pero un nuevo punto de vista puede servir como un ramo de olivo y punto de confluencia de las opiniones antagonicas.

El fundamento mas solido de la opinion sobre una Constitucion del Commonwealth y de la Republica a la vez estriba en el Artículo 2 (b) inciso (2): "Que los funcionarios elegidos y que sirvan bajo la Constitucion adoptada de conformidad con las disposiciones de ésta Ley seran los funcionarios constitucionales del Gobiemo libre e independiente de las Islas Filipinas y habilitados para ejercer sus funciones en todos los respectos como si hubieran sido elegidos directamente bajo dicho gobierno, y serviran durante todo el ejercicio del cargo que se prescribe en la Constitucion."

La palabra "habilitados" aplicada a los funcionarios del Commonwealth para ser despues funcionarios constitucionales del gobierno (filipino) libre e independiente, les da personalidad juridica para servir de funcionarios de la Republica Filipina, porque su primitiva autoridad juridica que les dio el Commonwealth para ser sus funcionarios caduco con la terminacion del Commonwealth. La citada habilitacion emana de la Republica. De aqui se infiere que la Constitucion del Commonwealth queda limitada dentro del Commonwealth.

Esto demuestra la perspicaz disposicion del Congreso Americano a favor del pueblo filipino para que, si a su debido tiempo, por cualquier motivo, se retrasara la formacion de la Constitucion de la futura Republica Filipina, no se retrase el advenimiento de ésta Republica.

Otro fundamento solido de la opinion a favor de la Constitucion dual, esto es, para el Commonwealth y la Republica, se apoya en la clausula de la Ley que dice: "Al termino de diez años el Presidente de los Estádos Unidos, en nombre de su pais, reconocera la independencia de Filipinas como una nacion separada que se gobernara por si misma y la autoridad del gobierno instituido por su pueblo bajo la Constitucion entonces en vigor."

La frase "Constitucion entonces en vigor" se refiere al periodo terminativo del Commonwealth separado del periodo de la Republica, porque el periodo del Commonwealth dura mientras no quede consumado con la entrega a Filipinas del dominio y jurisdiccion de nuestro pueblo y la retirada de la soberania americana, con el reconocimiento de la Independencia, y la palabra "reconocera" se refiere al pueblo del Commonwealth y no a la Republica. Está clausula, desde luego, no aboga por la Constitucion dual, porque analizando mas, la "Constitucion entonces en vigor" en nuestro pueblo instituye nuestro gobierno y nuestra nacion, y desde entonces nuestra nacion tiene ya vida natural, pero no vida legal. Ahora se pregunta, ¿quien da la vida legal a nuestra nacion? America con su sancion legal encarnada en su reconocimiento oficial como se ve en la citada clausula de la Ley.

Si hacemos una Constitucion que solo sirva para el Gobierno del Commonwealth, esto no es señal de un vacilante deseo de la Independencia, porque la Constitucion que formamos por virtud de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie, ademas de estructurar a nuestro pueblo, debe tender a demostrar nuestro acierto en cumplir la condicion que nos exige America a trueque de la independencia que va a venir en fecha fija y segura garantizada por la citada Ley. El Gobierno del Commonwealth es un entrenamiento en el manejo del gobierno en un terreno resbaladizo, y este terreno es la perspectiva de los intereses del Gobierno americano y de los ciudadanos americanos en nuestra propia tierra, y si por un descuido, alguna clausula, que inadvertidamente ponemos en la Constitucion, despierta o hiere la susceptibilidad de America, de cuya voluntad depende el nacimiento o aborto de nuestra futura Republica, resultara un incalculable perjuicio a nuestro supremo ideal.

El otro inconveniente que habria si hacemos la Constitucion extensiva hasta la Republica, como los tiempos que corremos son inquietos y la situacion de aqui a doce años despues de nuestra relacion con America es incierta seria la falta de adaptabilidad de la Constitucion que formemos ahora a la futura situacion.

Ademas, despues de diez años pueden ofrecerse algunas posibilidades de conquistas a nuestro favor, pero no podremos obtenerlas por una corta pieza que pueda entrañar la Constitucion, por una imprevision que no podamos evitar por una actuacion prematura. Muchas veces, un natural deseo degenera en un extraviado entusiasmo que pone una destructora intolerancia en los procedimientos adquiridos, que deben ser encauzados por una prudencia y cabal comprension de la raza y llevarnos al triunfo de la consecucion de nuestro deseo, que debemos tener en cuenta al formar una Constitucion para el Go­bierno del Commonwealth y para la Republica a la vez, que tiene que tocar algun asunto de caracter internacional, segun ésta clausula de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie: "Que el gobierno de las Islas Filipinas en cuanto sea independiente de los Estádos Unidos, asumira todas las obligaciones continuas contraidas por los Estádos Unidos en virtud del tratado de paz con España que cedio dichas Islas Filipinas a los Estádos Unidos." Elaborada ésta clausula se necesita conocimiento del alcance y volumen de dichas obligaciones y de los compromisos internacionales contraidos por America en el Tratado de Paris con España y otras naciones que tienen comercio con Filipinas y relaciones displomaticas con America.

En las relaciones y compromisos, consagrados por la diplomacia internacional, a parte de esto, hay secretes y tolerancias a cambio de las cancillerias. Recuerdese la cuestion de los chinos en Filipinas que no escribian sus libros de contabilidad en ingles y español, y con todo encontraron apoyo en Washington.

El tiempo de la Constitucion de la Republica Filipina ésta implicitamente indicado en las siguientes clausulas de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie: "La Constitucion debera contener tambien las siguientes disposiciones que tendran efecto desde la fecha de la proclama del Presidente reconociendo la independencia de las Islas Filipinas como mas adelante se dispone en la presente.

"Que los derechos de propiedad de los Estádos Unidos y de las Islas Filipinas se ajustaran y se determinaran inmediatamente."

Este "ajuste" es el tiempo implicitamente indicado por la Ley para formar la Constitucion de la Republica porque ya habra terminado la demostracion practica de nuestra capacidad para asumir todas las responsabilidades de una nacion completamente libre e independiente, y a America le tocara saldar del todo su solemne deuda y compromiso de honor con Filipinas.

Este ajuste se hara entre representantes americanos y filipinos de sus respectivos pueblos en larga y delicada conferencia oficial. Ahora Filipinas y America éstan en la posicion de dos socios en una sociedad mercantil que se disuelve en el tiempo del ajuste en que se les emplaza para señalar la cuantia del capital propio y respectivo de cada uno de los dos socios aportado al formar el negocio, y el balance de las existencias, de los gastos, de las perdidas, de las ganancias, de las obligaciones que pagar y otras responsabilidades. Despues de ésta operacion se hace la separacion de capitales existentes aportados y la reparticion proporcional de ganancias como tambien de los compromisos. Esto no es mas que una compensacion de Filipinas por los gastos que hizo America por ayudarnos a salir del yugo de España, de los gastos de la conservacion del gobierno filipino y de sus mejoras.

Despues de ésta operacion, siguen ofertas de permutas de intereses en regateos y propuéstas de tran-sacciones beneficiosas a ambas partes, etcetera. Cuando este todo; arreglado a satisfaccion, se consignara el acuerdo en solemne documento publico. Este documento dara orientacion luminosa a la formacion de nuestra Constitucion nacional para la Republica sin restricciones, ni imposiciones, ni deudas ni clausulas revocables. Por ultimo, libre ya la Constitution que se ha de formar de todos esos lunares de sumision, brillara como la mas preciosa joya, la soberania propia que es el ornamento esencial de todas las Constituciones.

En honor de la verdad, los defensores de la Constitucion puramente remisoria como tambien los defensores de la Constitutcion dual abordaron en sus elocuentes discursos este importantisimo asunto con maestria y metodo que revelan en ellos conocimiento consumado de la materia. Rindo respetuosamente mis palidos conceptos sobre este delicado asunto al mejor ilustrado criterio de los respetables miembros de ésta augusta Asamblea.

He dicho.

(El Sr. Presidente abandona la Presidencia, designando al Hon. Romualdez para ocupar el estrado).

SR. NEPOMUCENO (R.): Señor Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Señor Delegado.

SR. NEPOMUCENO, (R.): El siguiente orador del lado afirmativo es el Delegado Señor Sobrepeña.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: El Caballero de La Union tiene la palabra.

DISCURSO DEL SR. SOBREPEÑA

MR. SOBREPEÑA: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention: For some time now I have been ready to cast my vote on the pending question. Undoubtedly, all of us have made up our minds long before on how they will vote on the resolution when presented to us for decision. Almost all the bright stars in the Convention have shed their luminous light on the resolution. All possible arguments pro and con have been adduced during the period of ten hours alloted to the debate. The points have been mercilessly strained and, I suspect, beaten flat by repetion.

This reminds me of a story about a certain minister who was asked to leave a congregation in prayer.

He prayed thus:

We need pow .....

At this juncture a frank devotee already irked by the ceaseless repetition of "We need power, Lord " gave expression to his impatience and was heard saving, "Man what you need are ideas."

The repetition of the few important points presented m support of each side of the question at issue must have become irksome to us and to the public that listens to the echoes from this Hall.

There is, however, one point which I believe has not been dealt upon at lenght, if touched at all. I should like to bring it to your attention, as another reason why we should take a farsighted, instead of a shortsighted view on the Constitution we are to frame A national constitution is not simply an instrument to set up a new government or a charter of liberty to guaran­tee civil rights, but is a treatise which reflects the philosophy of life of the people that set it forth. When the Delegate from Cebu, the Honorable Manuel Briones spoke on the reason why he nominated our distinguished Present for the Presidency of this Convention, he said among other things:


The motive which inspired us to select the President of the Convention is one which in some measure must have inspired the electorate in choosing their delegates to this Assembly. It is clear, therefore, that right at the very birth of this Body a cry was heard that this Convention is to formulate a Constitution draw from the very depths of our native genius and designed to reflect our soul as a race before the keen eyes of an observant, if not optical world. The Constitution we write shall be the first document we as a people, through a truly representative assembly orderly and properly convened, shall present to mankind as an expression of our fundamental ideas on government, education, economics and various other vital subjects. By it the world will judge us whether or not we are a progressive race possessed of depth of thought and far vision.

If the Constitution we are to frame, the first document through which the peoples of the world will peer into our inner thoughts and into our souls, is to properly reflect our philosophy as a people, we should not aim at short range but at long range; we should not plan for a decade but for decades; we should not think in terms of the immediate but of years unending. Only as we think of the many years beyond shall we draw deeply from our background of centuries; only as we plan into the future shall we call forth into active play all our inner resources; only as we organize the entire life of the nation for all time shall we be able in a real way to articulate our yearnings, our hopes and aspirations.

For the making of such a document that would reflect and express the best ideas, the loftiest sentiments and the noblest hopes lying latent in Filipino bosoms, no representatives of any other people have met under more favorable circumstances. Most of the charters of liberty which nations of the world possess have been secured from unyielding governing powers by way of revolutions, and wrested from obstinate monarchs by means of fire and sword. They were made when excitement and passion ran high and when misunderstandings and hastes were rampant.

Such a state of affairs is not present at this Convention. The Filipino people are not wresting their freedom and civil rights from the clenched fists of obstinate tyrants but are receiving them from the gracious hands of a generous people. Neither are we meeting now under duress. We are assembled here freely, unmolested, undisturbed and unthreatened to formulate a document best suited to our needs, most compatible with our temperament, and best expressive of our thoughts and life. Indeed, in the spirit of calmness and thoughtfulness, in the assenting attitude of understanding and truthseeking and in the atmosphere of friendliness and freedom .we are privileged to frame the fundamental law of our land.

There is another reason for believing that the Constitution to be formulated now will be just a maniféstation of our outlook as a people. Those elected to this Assembly present a veritable cross-section of the people's thoughts and convictions and a balanced mixture of the cultures which form the warp and woof of our civilization.

We have here represented the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the conservative and the radical, the businessman and the churchman. The old brings into our deliberations the poise of age, and the young its restlessness. The rich brings to us for consideration the appreciation of the value of private property, and the poor the warning against social inequalities. The conservative brings to our study the steady factors of traditions; and the radical, the daring elements of progress. The businessman submits for our approval the proclamation of plans for economic emancipation; and the churchman, the enunciation of principles for the freedom of the soul. Thus, the old generation is given the privilege to have some direction in the affairs of its children while the youth is also given the opportunity to say what it wants of its future; the rich is allowed to protect his right and the poor to demand for greater opportunity; the conservative is allowed to yield his influence to preach his belief in materialism and the churchman to expound the emptiness of material prosperity in the absence of the eternal verities.

Not only do we have in this Convention a veritable cross-section of the people's life but also a happy mixture of the cultures which form the fabric of our civilization. Ably represented here is the Latin-Spanish culture. The product of Spanish schools are here adorning and effectively influencing this august Body. The Anglo-Saxon culture is no less lacking in its representation of able men. Graduates from our own English-taught schools and the universities of America are also represented here in great number. The best in the Christian civilization will not have monopoly of the best that we shall have embodied in the Constitution. The grandest in Mohammedanism may weave a fabric here and there interwoven in our finished product, perhaps to add to its something of the virility and brilliance of our brothers from Mindanao.

Mr. President, I most humbly submit that at no better time than now and under no favorable circumstances than the present can we convene a constitutional assembly to frame a Constitution that shall best orient the course of our country and formulate a document that shall beat reflect our philosophy as a people. I shall vote for the resolution to frame a constitution for an indefinite time, always subject of course to the future amendments and dispositions of our modern, growing and advancing race.

SR. KAPUNAN: Señor Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Señor Delegado por Leyte.

SR. KAPUNAN: El Caballero de Laguna, señor Zaballa, hablara en contra de la resolucion.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Laguna.

DISCURSO DEL SR. ZABALLA

MR. ZABALLA: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: Due to the limited time at my disposal, I will be brief in the exposition of my view on this resolution. I will muster my argument against the said resolution in simple and plain language, devoid of oratorical flights and embellishments which appeal more to the emotions and sentiments of the members of this distinguished Body than to their reasoning powers and intellect. In order to argue dispassionately this momentous question, we have to distinguish oratory from argument, reasons from sentiment, and logic from pure gesture.

At the outset, I want to make my stand against the resolution clear. I do not want to be misinterpreted. I am one of those who see the wisdom of drafting a Constitution of the Philippine Republic with the minimum alterations and amendments to adapt it to the new order of things. I am also for a Constitution that will withstand the havoc of time, a Constitution that will faithfully reflect the traditions, ideals, customs and culture of the Filipino people now and for the time to come, a Constitution that pulsates like a living being in harmony with the needs of the occasion.

In other words, I am for a Constitution susceptible to having life breathed into it, a Constitution that grows and is durable and indestructible. I am in sympathy with the spirit and intention of the resolution and also against it because it is impossible of compliance under the limited authority this Convention has; because this Convention has no authority to formulate a Constitution for the Philippine Republic; because this Convention, having only and enjoying a delegated power from the Congress of the United States, cannot decide for the generation to come what Constitution shall be adopted for the free and independent Philippine Republic; and because the question—whether or not the Constitution to be drafted and formulated by this Body should be adopted also as the fundamental law of the free and independent Philippines —depends upon the merit of its contents and not because this Convention decrees that it shall be so enforced after the éstablishment of the Philippine Republic.

I dare say that the resolution seeks the performance of an impossibility taking into account the limited authority this Convention has. We are here to draft and frame a Constitution by virtue of the grace, concession and delegation of authority made by the Congress of the United States and not as the representatives of a sovereign Filipino people. We derive our authority from Congress by virtue of the enactment of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, the Philippine Independence Law, and not because of the mandate of the sovereign people of a free and independent Philippines.

The gentleman from Camarines Sur, speaking yesterday of a Constitutional Convention with supreme and omnipotent powers and responsible only to the people, undoubtedly had in mind—judging from the authority cited by him—a constitutional convention called by the sovereign authority of the state and, therefore, clothed with powers and co extensive with sovereignty itself, with powers and co-extensive with sovereignty itself. This Convention, however, being a congressional creature, has necessarily limited powers consistent with those expressly granted in the enabling Act or necessarily implied therefrom. How can we prescribe what Constitution the future Philippine Republic shall have when we have only limited authority derived from the Congress of the United States? Is not the approval of the Osias resolution tantamount to subjecting the future and free independent Philippine Government to the humiliation of being run and legislated indirectly by the Congress of the United States even after the recognition of her free existence by the mother country? I further ask: Will the future Philippine- Republic abide by the dictum enunciated by this Body, if the resolution is approved, to the effect that the Constitution to be drafted and formulated under the limited authority delegated by the Congress of the United States shall also serve as the basic law of the future Republic? Suppose the sovereign people of the future Republic decides to adopt an entirely new Constitution effective upon the éstablishment of the new government, where will the Osias resolution be? Gentlemen, I sustain that the resolution now before this Convention for rejection or approval is useless, unnecessary and will not carry out the purpose by which it is intended.

The gentleman from Batangas, in answer to the argument against the resolution advanced by the gentleman from Manila, mentioned that since the Constitution to be drafted by this Body shall be submitted to the people of the Philippine Islands for ratification or rejection, as provided in Section 4 of the Independence Law, the same can serve as a Constitution of the Philippine Republic inasmuch as it has the stamp of approval of the people. Yes, it shall have the approval of independent people, but not of the sovereign Filipino people.

Whatever may be said in favor of the resolution, the fact remains that the approval of the Constitution to be drafted by the Filipino people under American regime is not equivalent to its ratification by a sovereign people in the exercise of their sovereign powers. In approving or rejecting the Constitution, they shall be acting as a mere mandatory of the Congress of the United States which gives us much concessions but subject to the limitations and conditions imposed in the Independence Law. It will be assuming too far if the advocates of the resolution should assert that the result of the plesbiscite would be the same if the Constitution were submitted to the people after the Republic was éstablished.

It is my humble opinion that this Convention has no power and authority to prescribe what Constitution the future Philippine Republic shall have, the contrary views advanced by the supporters of the resolution notwith­standing. The gentleman from La Union in recapitulating his arguments in favor of his resolution and in his usual lucid style hurled the challenge to the opponents of the resolution to cite a single provision in the whole Tydings-McDuffie Law limiting the authority of this Convention to draft a Constitution for the Philippine Commonwealth only. Such a challenge can be well answered by asking the proponent of the resolution himself to cite a single passage in the Independence Law which clearly and unequivocably gives to this distinguished Body the authority to draft the fundamental law for both the Philippine Commonwealth and the future Philippine Republic.

The proponent had to admit the first time he spoke in support of his measure that the clause "under the Constitution then in force" found in the last part of Section 10, subsection (4), of the Tydings-McDuffie Law presupposes that the future Philippine Republic might adopt at the time of its inauguration a Constitution other than the one which this Convention shall formulate. If that is so, then the gentleman from La Union has committed a glaring inconsistency in maintaining that this Body is the one called upon to formulate the fundamental law of the future Republic.

Notice, gentlemen of the Convention, that when the Congress of the United States desires to have some provisions made effective even after the éstablishment and recognition of the future Philippine Republic, it says so without hesitation, without reservation and without ambiguity. As Congress desires that the interests of the American citizens be protected even after the recognition of the independence of the Philippine Islands, it provides in Section 3, subsection (b) of the Tydings-McDuffie Law that the mandatory- provisions therein enumerated shall be "effective as to the date of the proclamation of the President recognizing the independence of the Philippine Islands. What could have prevented Congress, if its intention was really to give this Body authority to formulate the fundamental law of both the Commonwealth and the future Republic, to make itself just as clear when it prescribed that some of the mandatory provisions shall be effective after the recognition of our independence? If the intention of Congress was as claimed by the supporters of the resolution, why did it not include one to that effect among the mandatory provisions?

The power to lay down the fundamental law for another regime should not be presumed nor extracted drop by drop and piece by piece from disjointed and disconnected provisions of law. Because of its tremendous significance and far-reaching effect amounting to encroachment on the right of a free people, the power to draft a constitution for another government should not be so easily and lightly inferred. Therefore, it is for the advocates of the resolution to demonstrate that this distinguished Body has such power and authority, for its opponents have also all the presumptions in their favor.

The Constitution to be drafted by this distinguished Body may also serve as the fundamental law of the future Philippine Republic only in two cases: first, if imposed by Congress as a condition for the granting of the independence of these islands; and, second, if so adopted by the Philippine Republic itself. The omission of such a condition is enough proof that Congress did not in the least intend that the future Philippine Republic shall be made subject to the basic law to be drafted by this Body clothed with a borrowed and delegated authority. It is plain logic that the Congress of the United States cannot promise the freedom of our country and still prescribe what our Constitution should be after grant of independence without committing the grossest inconsistency imaginable.

The resolution under consideration is also entirely out of place and premature. The future Republic itself will determine what Constitution it shall have. We do not represent the future Philippine Republic, and I, for one, will not dare decide for the sovereign authority of the Philippine Republic when I know positively that I am not here as a representative of a free and independent state in the making. Let us not arrogate to ourselves the power we do not possess; let us not attribute to ourselves privileges which we do not have; and let us not decide that the Constitution to be prepared by us shall also serve as the basic law of the Philippine Republic even before we have the Constitution and long before the advent of the Republic itself. Let me first cast my eyes on the Constitution before I decide to bind with my action the present generation of the Philippines, the generation to come and posterity. I cannot cast my vote for the adoption of a Constitution that is still hanging in the air when the happiness and welfare of our people is dependent upon it.

Gentlemen, the present stand of the advocates of the resolution may be likened to a physician who prescribes today a certain medicine to cure his patient of the ailment that may attack him ten years from now, with a promise that he will be able to find out the curative efficacy of said medicine in a couple of months. If you are the patient, what will you think of such a physician? In this case we are not only risking the life of a single individual but the existence of a nation of thirteen million souls.

LEVANTAMIENTO DE LA SESIÓN

SR. SEVILLA: Señor Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Señor Delegado.

SR. SEVILLA: Pido que se levante la sesión hasta el lunes proximo, a las cinco de la tarde.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Los que esten conformes con la mocion, que digan: Si. (Varios Delegados: Si.) Los que no lo esten que digan No. (Varios Delegados: No.) Hay una mayoria a favor de la mocion Queda aprobada.

Se levanta la sesión hasta el proximo lunes, a las cinco de la tarde.

Eran las 10:16 a.m.