tween the United States and Great Britain, in which there appeared these significant articles:

First. That no discrimination shall be made among the inhabitants of Palestine on the grounds of race or religion or language and that no person should be excluded from Palestine because of his religious beliefs.

Second. This convention could not be modified except with the consent of the United States.

Notwithstanding these specific provisions of our convention with Great Britain, the British Government without consulting us and without obtaining permission from this country issued what is known as the Palestine White Paper.

Under this so-called White Paper, it was provided among other things that Jewish immigration to Palestine should be limited to not more than 75,000 and that this total must be reached by March 31, 1944, after which no Jews would be allowed to enter Palestine. In other words, the Jewish Home Land would be the only place from which Jews would be absolutely barred as Jews-in spite of the fact that Britain solemnly pledged hereself to establish a Jewish Home Land in Palestine.

Our Government cannot permit that a friendly government like that of Great Britain should thus flout its own solemn pledge in favor of the Jewish Home Land in Palestine.

It is also of importance to note that while most of the countries in the Near East are straddling and "sitting on the fence," not giving the United Nations the slightest help or cooperation in the war, it is the Jews of Palestine who participate in this war to the fullest extent. They have written a vivid chapter of brilliant, eager, and courageous participation in the war on the side of the United Nations. Their self-sacrifice and courage have excited the admiration of the British and American officers under whom these men and women have served.

Pierre von Paassen has called the Jewish participation in the war and the extraordinary heroism displayed by the Jews in Palestine during all of the campaigns in the Near East as "the best-kept secret of this war."

But, the secret is out. There is no question that Britain is entirely unjust in closing the doors of Palestine to Jewish refugees at a time when they need it most.

The New York Times has published an editorial which I am submitting to the committee. The Times is by no means a paper which favors Zionism, nevertheless it has taken the sound view that the British White Paper is at the present time a tremendous mistake.

On the basis of Britain's pledges, as well as for humanitarian reasons which we must not lose sight of, I respectfully urge that the committee recommend favorably the resolution requesting Great Britain to abrogate the White Paper.

(The editorial from the New York Times is as follows:)

THE WHITE PAPER

According to the original provisions of the white paper issued by the British Government on May 17, 1939, Jewish immigration into Palestine was limited to 75,000 for a 5-year period and was due to be stopped completely on March 31, 1944. Even that small quota was not filled because of war conditions, and the terms were modified last November to permit the entry of immigrants who were unable to reach the country before the deadline. But a mere extension of the time limit is not enough. As the end of the 5-year period draws near it is

clearer than it was in 1939 that the ban imposed by the British after years disorder and the failure of the abortive round-table conference was a stopga rather than a solution of a complex and burning problem.

The case for American intervention in this question is stronger than it was. years ago. The presence of our troops and supply depots in the Near East and our vital concern in peace and order in this strategic area give us a greater right to urge that the white paper should now be abrogated. At the time it was published this newspaper opposed the rigid limitation on the flow of immigrants into Palestine as unjust and unacceptable, and everything that has happened since confirms and strengthens that opinion. The increasingly desperate state of those of Jewish faith in Europe has made it more than ever evident that in these tragic years the doors of any place or refuge, instead of being closed to a crack, should have been opened wider.

On the future political status of Palestine there is room for wide and deep divergences of view. This question remains, and promises to remain for a long time to come, one of the most complex and highly charged problems of post-war statesmanship. But it is significant that Jews and non-Jews no matter how much they differ on this point, stand solidly in support of that part of the current congressional resolution that advocates American initiative in seeking to obtain the resumption of immigration. The hearings before the House Foreign Affairs Committee reveal general agreement on the justice and necessity of removing the white paper ban. This is a fair reflection of public opinion in this country. The final settlement of the Palestine problem fits into the framework of the general peace. It depends on the code of justice and security the victors are able to establish. Meantime there can be no question that humanity and a sense of reality demand that the arbitrary ban should be lifted and immigration should be permitted on the most generous terms possible.

Chairman BLOOM. Thank you, Mr. Dickstein.

Chairman BLOOM. We will now hear from our distinguished colleague from Vermont, Congressman Charles A. Plumley.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I just desire to place myself on record as being wholeheartedly in favor of the resolution now under consideration which call for the reopening of Palestine to Jewish immigration so that the purpose and intent of the Balfour Declaration may be realized.

I believe that a careful study of the documents compiled in the pamphlet arranged by Chairman Bloom, which contains the remarks in opposition to the British white paper on Palestine which were made in the British Parliament in 1939, will show that House Resolutions 418 and 419 merit the support of the Congress. I hope that you ladies and gentlemen of the committee will soon report this matter favorably to the House so that steps may be taken to reopen this ancient homeland of the Jews so that it may become a true haven of refuge for the persecuted members of their faith who have endured and suffered so terribly under Nazi and Fascist tyranny and oppression.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Rosenwald, I understand you completed your statement yesterday.

Mr. ROSENWALD. That is right, sir.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Johnson, were you here?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I asked Mr. Rosenwald all the questions I cared to ask him yesterday, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. Dr. Eaton?

Dr. EATON. I was not here, I am sorry to say, but I have no questions at the moment. I am like Mr. Delaney who came here for education.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Jarman?

Mr. JARMAN. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF LESSING J. ROSENWALD

Chairman BLOOм. You may proceed, Mr. Rosenwald.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Rosenwald, for the possible correction of the record you referred yesterday to President Wilson having appointed some committee which reported to him just before he left town on the trip during which he died. You must have meant President Harding. Mr. ROSENWALD. No. He never did report to President Wilson in full because President Wilson had left the Capitol.

Mr. JARMAN. You mean he had gone out of office.

Mr. ROSENWALD. It may have been that way, I understand that he did not receive this report in full although he had a brief of it prior to that time.

Mr. JARMAN. If that was in error I wanted to correct it.

Mr. ROSENWALD. It was President Wilson.

Chairman BLOOм. Any further questions, Mr. Jarman?
Mr. JARMAN. That is all.

Chairman BLOOм. Mrs. Rogers, do you wish to ask Mr. Rosenwald any questions on his testimony of yesterday?

Mrs. ROGERS. No; I am very sorry I had to leave. I wonder if he would tell me briefly.

Chairman BLOOM. That is just a question it would not take too long to answer. Mrs. Rogers would like to know how you feel about

the resolution.

Mrs. ROGERS. I am very sorry I was not here to hear your testimony yesterday.

Mr. ROSENWALD. If I could describe it briefly, Mrs. Rogers, I advocate the first part of the resolution which requests that the doors of Palestine be opened again for immigration and that the restrictions on purchases of land be removed and the ground that it was placed upon was that I felt that it was inadvisable to make such restrictions on Jews as Jews.

The second part of the resolution which had to do with the establishment of a national Jewish commonwealth or state in Palestine I opposed on the ground that I thought inimical to the Jewish people in Palestine as well as to the Jewish people outside of Palestine.

In brief I think that is as well as I can give it to you. The statement which I gave was not very long. I think it takes 10 or 15 minutes to read.

Mrs. ROGERS. Have you a copy of the statement?

Mr. ROSENWALD. I gave the only copy to the secretary.

Chairman BLOOM. The reporter will have it up here today.

Mrs. ROGERS. I will see it there.

Chairman BLOOM. Any further questions, Mrs. Rogers?

Mrs. ROGERS. Then I gather you do not favor the creation of a Jewish commonwealth.

Mr. ROSENWALD. A national Jewish state?

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. ROSENWALD. I think it would be more advisable to have an independent, democratic Palestine nation established with all the inhabitants of the country having equal rights and equal obligation,

95149-44-11

where all the inhabitants would be Palestinians regardless of their respective faiths, Jews in Palestine being Palestine citizens of Jewish faith even as we in the United States are American citizens of Jewish faith.

Mrs. ROGERS. Like our own Government.

Chairman BLOOM. Dr. Eaton, do you want to ask a question?

Dr. EATON. Mr. Rosenwald is a very practical businessman and I want to ask him his views, when the Jew follows out this idea and becomes a very large majority in Palestine it will then become practically a Jewish state; would it not?

Mr. ROSENWALD. Doctor, I cannot answer that yes or no. I would like to say a few words on the subject.

Dr. EATON. Certainly; that is what I want you to do.

Mr. ROSENWALD. I should say, Doctor, that it seems to me that the purpose of democracy almost precludes the fact that you take a minority population and artificially build it up by restriction so that that minority then becomes a majority and after that you declare that you are going to have a democratic state which shall be exclusively a democratic state of that majority, even if that should come to pass where the Jews are in the majority. I still feel there should be a democratic state of Palestine in which the citizens of the majority as well as the minority should be citizens of a Palestine state which would mean each would have their own rights and own responsibilities, being citizens of Palestine.

Dr. EATON. And share in the government?

Mr. ROSENWALD. And share in the government and in the responsibilities as well as the benefits of such a government.

Dr. EATON. Rabbi Silver raised the question of Trans-Jordan. There is no use considering that. You have a vast territory across the dark Jordan. Your idea sounds very statesmanlike to me; that is to have joint action of the nations to create a new nation, throw that nation open to immigration so that the Jewish people of the world will be free to go there and keep and develop this territory east of the Jordan. That would solve the problem of a Jewish home and eventually would solve the problem of their dominance in the home of their fathers, do you not think?

Mr. ROSENWALD. Doctor, may I suggest the language of your resolution I do not believe contemplates anything more than the limits of Palestine as it now exists, and do you not think that would apply to Trans-Jordan? If such land were available it would offer that much more haven of refuge for all the pressed people-Jews, political exiles, and all those who might desire to emigrate to Palestine as a place of refuge. I do not believe that part of the country is included in the resolution as indicating Palestine.

Dr. EATON. What is the capacity of this limited territory?

Mr. ROSENWALD. I do not have that.

Dr. EATON. Could it accommodate much beyond double the present population? How many millions could you squeeze into that little cubbyhole?

Mr. KEE. The testimony is they can absorb about 4,000,000 in addition to what they have now.

Dr. EATON. But the resolution provides that there shall be full opportunity for colonization. In your judgment does this small territory give full opportunity for colonization?

Mr. ROSENWALD. I think it gives additional opportunity for colonization, but to what extent I am not prepared to testify.

Mr. JOHNSON. Some of the members were not here yesterday and did not hear Mr. Rosenwald's objection. His objection to the resolution began with the last clause which says that there shall be full opportunity for colonization, so that the Jewish people may ultimately reconstitute Palestine as a free and democratic Jewish community; that is the last two lines.

Those were the lines of the resolution to which you objected?

Dr. EATON. You want Palestine to be a nation without the name of any particular race dominating.

Mr. ROSENWALD. Yes, sir.

Dr. EATON. But you take it for granted the dominant population will be Jewish.

Mr. ROSENWALD. I do not take it for granted.

Dr. EATON. But it might happen that way.

Mr. ROSENWALD. But it might happen that way. We happen to have certain sections of this country where I think such is the case, but we are still American citizens and citizens of this country, rather than having an isolated religious-political state, which I believe is not in the best interest of the Jews themselves.

Chairman BLOOM. Will the gentleman yield to me.

Mr. ROSENWALD. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. I would like to have Mr. Johnson read from the mandate on page 11, the second article, will you kindly read that Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. At the request of the chairman I read from a document entitled "Excerpts from State Department Publication No. 153," page 11, second article.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

ARTICLE 2

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Dr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Rosenwald to interpret for me his point of view on another word or two in this resolution. What do you understand by the phrase "Appropriate measures,' for our Government to take. "Good offices" are one thing, but what are "appropriate measures"? Have they got a bayonet on the end of them?

Mr. ROSENWALD. My point of view is I think that is something the committee must decide for themselves. From my own point of view it would be very hazardous to pass a resolution which carried with it an implication we are going to back up this by force of arms.

Dr. EATON. What would be your definition of "appropriate meas

ures"?

Mr. ROSENWALD. First of all this committee should render its opinion. That opinion should be of great practicable value or only of moral effect. The moral effect would probably weigh considerably with our ally, Great Britain. On the other hand Great Britain may take the point of view if you are going to recommend such action and