STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want, at the outset, to thank you for this high privilege of presenting a statement this morning on H. R. 418, introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Wright, and H. R. 419, introduced by our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Compton.

I shall occupy but 10 minutes of your valuable time, ladies and gentlemen, trying to cramp into that space my views on this most momentous question.

The resolutions before this committee are in the spirit of the humanitarian Presidential directive setting up the War Refugee Board, to rescue helpless and hopeless Jews and other refugees from the charnel house of Hitler's Festung Europa.

The resolutions seek at long last to have definite action taken by way of urging Great Britain to abrogate the Malcolm Macdonald White Paper of 1939, and to reestablish Palestine as a haven and national homeland for the Jews, in accordance with the principles laid down by the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917.

Now, since this White Paper of 1939 limits immigration into Palestine to 75,000, (and up to this point there are only thirty-odd thousand certificates of entrance left), and thereafter by April 1 next precludes the entrance of Jews except by will of the Arab majority, we have a paper which violates the Balfour Declaration guaranteeing Palestine as a national homeland, which declaration was abbetted and approved by 52 nations, including our own.

It violates the concurrent resolution of Congress adopted in 1922, favoring the said Balfour Declaration as the basis for ceding of Palestine to Great Britain as a mandatory power;

It violates the Anglo-American treaty in 1924, wherein the said Balfour Declaration was reaffirmed, and wherein it was mutually agreed:

(a) that there could be no unilateral infraction of the treaty by either party, and

(b) that there could be no discrimination as to immigration into Palestine of peoples on the grounds of race or religion.

Aside from the moral and spiritual ties, thus there is a legal nexus between the United States and Palestine. Thus far our administration has not given any expression of opinion anent this so-called White Paper. Our State Department has been strangely silent. In my humble opinion, there were ample grounds for vigorous protest, since this White Paper was a unilateral infraction of the Treaty of 1924, and further involves discrimination as to immigration into Palestine on the grounds of religion and race. Congress should not be silent.

Be it remembered that once before there was such a violation of the Treaty of 1924. In 1937 there was an exchange of notes between our then British Ambassador, Robert W. Bingham, and the British Foreign Office concerning the partition of Palestine with the slicing off of Transjordan, and Ambassador Bingham reminded Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary, that no change in the political status of Palestine could take place without the previous consent of the

Government of the United States, and I quote the Ambassador, "having regard to the terms of the American-British Convention of December 3, 1924."

America has not consented to the so-called white paper

In a note of July 7, 1937, from the British Foreign Office to our American Ambassador at London, the British Government states:

The United States Government has accepted the provisions in article 27 of the mandate, which lays down that the mandate may be altered with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations.

Great Britain submitted the White Paper in 1939 to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations as a condition precedent to seeking approval of the Council of the League of Nations, but the Permanent Mandates Commission which contained a British member, not only refused to accept the terms of the White Paper limiting immigration as well as the purchase of land by the Jews, but in very forceful language repudiated the terms of the Macdonald White Paper.

The exigencies of the war precluded England's presenting the White Paper for approval to the Council of the League of Nations.

Thus, then, the White Paper is stripped of all legality. It has no legal justification whatsoever. By its own admission, Britain states it cannot alter the terms of the mandate given to it by the League of Nations without the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, and that consent has not been obtained.

Upon Britain's announcement of its change of policy, as contained in the White Paper, President Roosevelt was asked to take action in protest by a petition signed by 51 Senators, 194 Representatives, and 30 Governors. The President expressed his sympathy and promised to do "all in his power" to prevent curtailment of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

On May 17, 1939, despite animadversions against it from all over the world, the British Government published its White Paper, which, in effect, as of April 1st next, would freeze the Jewish minority in Palestine as a permanent ghetto, and if I might say, in common parlance, then their homeland "will be sold down the river."

Also, at that very time, 1939, 15 members of this Foreign Affairs Committee urged our State Department to protest and termed the White Paper a clear repudiation of the 1924 Anglo-American convention.

That the British Cabinet itself felt that its proposed solution for the future of Palestine was not based on the merits of the case but rather on political expediency of the moment is evidenced from a statement reputedly made by Lord Halifax, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now British Ambassador here, that "there are times when ethical considerations must yield to practical necessity." That is a fine bit of sophistry. If such practical necessity may be deemed just, I say, "There is a point beyond which even justice becomes unjust."

Now, in the House of Commons in the debate on the White Paper, which has been referred to by our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Eberharter, Leopold S. Amery, formerly First Lord of the Admiralty, and formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies, and who was closely associated with the discussion which preceded the Balfour Declaration when he was Secretary to the War Cabinet, said, "The Jews were to be in Palestine as of right, and on sufferance."

Reference has already been made to the remarks of Herbert Morrison, now Home Secretary, Minister of Home Security in this historic debate on the White Paper in the House of Commons.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in the House of Lords, on May 23, 1939, said:

When I come to the actual policy as outlined in this White Paper, then I am bound in honesty to say that I have very grave misgivings. I cannot feel that it holds out a prospect of reasonable justice to the Jews.

The views of many other distinguished men, like Lord Wedgewood, Lloyd George, and General Smuts, are reflected in the following views uttered by Winston Churchill, who, on the occasion of the debate on the White Paper, said:

I say quite frankly that I find this a melancholy occasion. I feel bound to vote against the proposals of His Majesty's Government. As one intimately and responsibly concerned in the earlier stages of our Palestine policy, I could not stand by and see solemn engagements into which Britain has entered before the world set aside for reasons of administrative convenience or-and it will be a vain hope for the sake of a quiet life. Like my honorable friend, I should feel personally embarrassed in the most acute manner if I lent myself, by silence or inaction, to what I must regard as an act of repudiation.

He finally continued by saying that the White Paper was equivalent to filing a petition in moral and physical bankruptcy.

In a little over 1 month, Jews will be bar locked from Palestine. How ill have the Jews used Palestine that now the one open door must be slammed shut in their search for dignity and security? Indeed, they husbanded its arid soil, made it rich in the fruits of the earth. They built hospitals for Jews and Arabs alike. They brought music and science that had been left behind in civilization's march. The British Colonial Office says, "Let the Jews go elsewhere." That is said in mocking parallel to, "Let them eat cake."

Many suggestions have been made for havens for Jews. How fruitful were these suggestions is revealed by the attitude tersely expressed by the Australian delegate at Evian. "Gentlemen," he said, "we in Australia have no racial problem, thank God. We do not intend to have one started." That summation is brilliant in its brevity, finality and tragedy.

Palestine is the only place where the Jews are not unwanted. Now, the White Paper even precludes. Palestine must be opened as a temporary as well as a permanent shelter. It has an absorptive capacity for 2,000,000 more Jews.

Be it remembered, also, that shortly before the signing of the mandate, a statement of policy was issued on June 3, 1922, by Winston Churchill, then Secretary for Colonies, in which the principle of absorptive capacity was set up as the sole criterion for immigration into Palestine. The White Paper sets up another but illegal, amoral standard.

Jews trapped by the Nazi jackals will manage to escape if they know Palestine is open. The underground will help them, just as our underground railway helped escaping slaves to the North before and during the Civil War.

Jews will make the anabasis to Palestine. No matter how perilous the trek may be, they will make it. Their nostalgia for their homeland will sustain them and they will go rejoicing and singing into Zion.

Among the real pleasures of Winston Churchill was his tender care for his 10,000 tropical fish which he maintained in seven ponds on his

estate at Chartwell Manor. In peaceful times, he used to watch them for hours, feed them, and call some of them by name. He remembered them when Hitler's attacks on man and beast in England grew ever more ruthless. As First Lord of the Admiralty, he took care to have them removed to safer ponds.

I petition Churchill to have the White Paper, a real cataract of disaster to humans, abrogated so as many as possible of the Jews be taken from Hitler's cesspools of iniquity and death and removed to safer "ponds" in Palestine.

Finally, Cato in the Roman Senate terminated all his speeches with the famous statement, "Delenda est Carthago." "Carthage must be destroy ed." I, too, terminate my remarks with the phrase "Delenda est Charta Blanca," "The White Paper must be destroyed."

It will be destroyed by your favorable consideration of these resolutions.

Chairman BLOOM. Thank you very much, Mr. Celler.

We are honored this morning by a former member of this committee, a gentleman you all know, Representative Hamilton Fish from New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAMILTON FISH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is a great honor and privilege for me to come back here to this committee table around which I sat for some 20 years as a member of your distinguished committee.

I know very well that any words that I may add to this subject will not be at all persuasive to those of you who have studied this question, but it does not do any harm I believe to look at the record. I am not quite sure whether you, Mr. Chairman, were a member of your committee in 1922 when we adopted the so-called Zionist resolution, or the Fish-Lodge resolution in favor of establishing a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. And I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, were you a member of the committee at that time in 1922? Chairman BLOOM. No.

Mr. FISH. Therefore, nobody on the committee was a member then?

Chairman BLOOM. That is right.

Mr. FISH. And perhaps that is the reason, Mr. Chairman, because I have the highest regard for you personally, that you overlooked the little fact in this pamphlet which I read last night, and which I think has been so ably written entitled "The Jewish National Home in Palestine," and failed to mention the fact that a member of this committee, your committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, introduced in 1922 a resolution endorsing the Balfour resolution, and as a matter of record, and I am very proud of the record, I was the sponsor of that resolution.

It was known then as the Fish-Lodge resolution, and it merely placed the approval of Congress upon the Balfour resolution for the establishment of a homeland in Palestine for Jews with certain restrictions as to religion.

To have the record correct, it so happened that both the Lodge resolution and the Fish resolution passed our respective Houses, but

95149-44

in the parliamentary mix-up the Fish resolution was the only one that went through and was signed by President Harding. It was an act of Congress and not a proclamation of the President, who merely signed the resolution.

I have noticed in recent years, and I say it with the utmost good humor, that some of the Zionists have perhaps unintentionally overlooked the fact that the author of this resolution, who happened to be a noninterventionist before the war, and proud of it, has been perhaps deliberately overlooked as the sponsor of the resolution, but I want to go on record as saying that does not make a particle of difference to me. I do not change my views after I make up my own mind if I believe in a thing and they are my convictions. I stand by it just the same whether anybody is against me or everybody is against me.

I was a Zionist back in 1922, I am a Zionist today, and I am more of a Zionist than ever before now because there is more need for Zionism today to take care of these homeless Jewish people in Palestine, who are the victims of persecution, hatred, and bigotry, than ever before, so that these hunted and persecuted Jews of central and western Europe may find a refuge in Palestine, which was their original homeland.

This is no new matter, Mr. Chairman, for your committee, not since 1922, because we have had this matter up many times.

In looking over my files yesterday I came across some telegrams, and I came here not only by the prompting of my own mind and own heart but also was instigated, I am glad to say, by many Jewish organizations in my district as well as many prominent Jewish people. Perhaps before I go any further I should read you just one of the telegrams that I have received. It is addressed to me:

On behalf of 3,500 Jewish citizens of Newburgh I urge your immediate public endorsement of House Resolutions 418 and 419 and ask that you notify the Foreign Affairs Committee of your stand. I recall your sponsorship of the Lodge-Fish resolution of a quarter century ago, one of the finest actions taken during your lengthy public service. Today as never before it is vital that the United States publicly and officially stand back of Prime Minister Churchill, who has always been a friend of world Jewry in voiding the dastardly White Paper which threatens cessation of immigration into Palestine March 31, 1944. Alleged suspension of the White Paper as reported in the press is a subterfuge. It merely extends visa rights to several thousand immigrees but closes the door to multithousands who, if denied entry where wanted, will die the Hitlerian death. Establishment of, a Jewish commonwealth as urged in the Lodge-Fish resolution in 1922 is paramount today. Palestine has been in the vanguard of the United Nations, only land in the Near East heart and soul with us in winning the war. Palestine welcomes all the Nazi victims who can be transported, and remember the Mediterranean today is ours. I urge your valiant effort in this matter. Enlist your friends and have them notify the Foreign Affairs Committee of their attitude on this nondebatable humanity-saving proposal.

It is signed "Seymour S. Cohen, president of the Newburgh Jewish Community Council."

I sent them this telegram:

SEYMOUR COHEN,

President, Newburgh Jewish Community, Newburgh, N. Y.

In compliance with your friendly and ably worded request as president of the Newburgh Jewish Community Council and that of Freda F. Miller of the Newburgh Chapter of Hadassah and Louis Leis of the Walden Jewish Community Center and numerous others, I have spoken to Chairman Bloom and arranged with his complete accord and cooperation to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee this Tuesday morning in behalf of the Wright-Compton bill urging that Palestine be opened up to Jewish immigration in accordance with the terms of the Lodge-Fish resolution adopted by Congress 21 years ago. I agree it is more important than ever to provide a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish victims of Nazi brutality and persecution.