DAVENPORT, Iowa, March 29, 1945. Hon. THOMAS E. MARTIN, Hon. B. HICKENLOOPER, Hon. GEORGE WILSON, Hon. ANTON JOHNSON, Hon. S. W. LUCAS. HONORABLE SIRS: There are a number of bills before your committee which would eliminate discrimination in the present law against naturalization for particular groups. Whole sections of people, who are our allies in this war are not allowed under the law to enter the United States in some cases, and are forbidden the right to become citizens in others. We therefore urge you to report out favorably the following: H. R. 173, H. R. 2067, H. R. 1568, H. R. 17, and H. R. 115. Sincerely yours, THE COMMUNITY CHURCH OF NEW YORK, Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, DEAR MR. DICKSTEIN: I am writing you on behalf of the proposed legislation now before the House Immigration Committee, which will permit East Indians to enter this country on a quota basis and to become citizens. It is heartening to read this morning that President Roosevelt has given his unqualified support to this measure. I beg to express the hope that your committee will report this proposed legislation to the House promptly and favorably, and that you yourself will do your utmost to secure its passage. Very sincerely yours, JOHN HAYNES HOLMES. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the hearing then will stand adjourned for an executive session which the Chair will set sometime today. We will adjourn now until tomorrow morning to finish the Lynch bill. Then we can dispose of both of these problems. I think we ought to set down the executive session for Monday. Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Mason? Mr. MASON. It is agreeable to me. The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will set down Monday for an executive session, at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:15 a. m. the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. Wednesday, March 14, 1945.) TO GRANT A QUOTA TO EASTERN HEMISPHERE INDIANS AND TO MAKE THEM RACIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1945 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. When we adjourned yesterday the Chair announced that the hearings on the CellerLuce bills were closed. Without objection those hearings will be reopened to hear a witness from the State Department, and then the hearings will be closed and we will finish up the hearings on the Lynch bill and the Powell bill. Now, you may proceed, Mr. Flournoy. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, after the meeting yesterday I called the chairman's attention to the fact that it is impossible for an East Indian to come to the United States as a nonimmigrant, under the provisions of section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924, for the reason that we have no commercial treaty with India. The commercial treaty with Great Britain of 1815 is limited to commerce between the United States and British territory in Europe, therefore it does not cover India. I merely wish to call attention to that. The CHAIRMAN. Then the statement that someone made here that they could come in temporarily for business purposes under a treaty was not correct? Mr. FLOURNOY. No. They can come in temporarily as visitors under section 3 (2), but they have to go through the process of having their leave to stay in the United States extended from time to time, whereas those who come in under a treaty can stay in the United States indefinitely, so long as they are carrying on commerce between the two countries. The CHAIRMAN. That would be under section 3 of the 1924 act? Mr. FLOURNOY. Section 3 (6). Under that provision, persons coming from most countries for the purpose of carrying on international trade, can stay indefinitely. Of course, temporary visitors may obtain special permission to stay longer. 137 The CHAIRMAN. So that, summing up the situation of the East Indians, that privilege as a merchant engaged in trade, that other nations have for their businessmen Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). Most of them. The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Most of them-does not apply to the East India people? Mr. FLOURNOY. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Now, is there any other statement you wish to make in behalf of the legislation, while you are here? Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; I think not. The Department has submitted a written statement in support of the pending measure. I am interested in this measure, having worked on immigration matters, as you know, for many years. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I know that. Mr. FLOURNOY. Personally I am strongly in favor of this measure. The CHAIRMAN. You have been with the State Department how many years? Mr. FLOURNOY. I hate to say how many years; but over 40. Mr. MASON. You say you are strongly in favor of this measure. Which measure are you referring to, the Lynch bill or the Celler-Luce bill? Mr. FLOURNOY. I favor putting them on a par with the Chinese. Mr. MASON. That is, to establish a quota? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. I would not limit the measure to the East Indians to whom the Lynch bill applies, that is to those already in the country. I think that is too narrow. Mr. MASON. Your statement is to the effect that a merchant from India seeking to do business in this country has to come in as a visitor and get his visa extended, because we have no trade treaty which covers him here, whereas the merchants from other nations or other territories, most of them, with whom we have trade treaties, may come in and stay indefinitely, as long as they are attending to their business, the exchange of goods? Mr. FLOURNOY. Correct. Mr. MASON. That is a new thought to me, Mr. Chairman. I think it has a direct bearing on this bill. Mr. REES. Isn't that because India is a part of Great Britain, and we cannot make a treaty with India? Is that correct? Mr. FLOURNOY. I would not undertake to go into that, whether we can make a treaty or not. That is a difficult problem. But we do not have one. The treaty with Great Britain made in 1815, the old treaty of commerce, which is still in effect, is limited to trade between the United States and British territories in Europe. Mr. REES. And for that reason India is excluded. If we would amend the treaty with Great Britain to include her other territories, of course we could trade with India the same as with other countries; could we not? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. So, after all, it is probably a question of amending our treaty with Great Britain, if we can get it done. Mr. MASON. Providing Great Britain would be willing to amend that treaty to give us rights in India. Mr. McCowEN. That is the point exactly. Mr. FLOURNOY. I think the solution would be found in this bill. Mr. REES. I understand, but let me ask you this: We are talking now about a treaty with India. Mr. REES. Ordinarily you would make the treaty with the independent nation itself; would you not? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. So the ordinary course would be to make a treaty with Great Britain; would it not? Mr. FLOURNOY. That is a problem that I have not gone into, whether we would make it with Great Britain to cover India. Í suppose it would be with the British sovereign with reference to India. I should think that would be the solution. Mr. REES. Do you know of any other case where it has been suggested that we make a treaty with a dependency, such as we are talking about this morning with respect to India? Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not know of any. I think there are some proposals, but in my particular line of work in the Department I have not had occasion to go into it. I did make an inquiry. I think proposals have been made, but no treaties so far. Mr. REES. Let me stress that just a little further. You have just suggested that we have treaties with China, for instance, and with other countries, but this is the first time, is it not, that it has been suggested that we make a treaty with a dependency of a sovereign nation? Mr. FLOURNOY. Well, I have not suggested that. I merely call attention to the fact that we have no treaty. Mr. REES. But isn't that correct, so far as you know? Isn't it a fact that this is the first time that we have talked about making a treaty if you call it a treaty Mr. MASON (interposing). But we are not talking about making a treaty. This legislation does not make a treaty. This has nothing to do with a treaty. Mr. REES. All right, then. I will put it in another way. Isn't this the first time we have had legislation before us whereby we deal with or attempt to deal with a dependency of a foreign country with respect to this particular problem? In other words, you just told us that the reason we do not have a treaty with India is because of the British treaty of 1815, wherein it was definitely understood that the treaty affected only Great Britain, or, as you suggest, the sovereign power in Europe. Mr. FLOURNOY. It is so stated in the treaty. It relates to trade between the United States and British territories in Europe only. Mr. REES. Now, the easy way to take care of the thing you just mentioned would be to just extend that treaty with Great Britain, would it not, and let that include other territories? Mr. FLOURNOY. All I can say is that if we had such a treaty then I think 3 (6) would apply. Now, whether, all things considered, it is desirable to have a treaty of that kind, I am not in a position to express an opinion, because I have not had occasion to go into that. Mr. McCOWEN. So far as we know, we do not have a treaty with any country from which there is no quota for immigration, other than India? Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not get your question, Congressman. Mr. McCowEN. There is no quota from India, is there? That is what we are attempting to do now. Mr. FLOURNOY. The difficulty is not lack of quota. Mr. McCOWEN. I understand that, but I am just asking the question, Do you know of any other country that we do not have a treaty with that has a quota under our immigration laws? Mr. FLOURNOY. Well, we have commercial treaties with a great many countries, most of the large countries, but those treaties relate only to those persons coming for purposes of commerce. This pending measure is not limited to persons coming for commerce. Mr. McCowEN. I understand that. That is not my question. Do you know of any other country that we do not have a treaty with that has a quota for immigration into the United States? Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not know of any except the other British Dominions. We have no commercial treaties with them, but in the cases of those dominions the racial difficulty, which is the subject of this measure, does not exist to any great extent. In South Africa, for example, the inhabitants are mostly British people and Dutch and Africans. They are all racially admissible. They can be naturalized. The CHAIRMAN. Isn't this about the situation: Assuming for the sake of argument, other countries who have no quotas still have a right under a treaty to come in as merchants and trade and stay here while they are conducting their business, but India does not have that privilege. Probably Great Britain has had her own reasons for not negotiationg a new commercial treaty to include India. She took that upon herself as the so-called guardian of India not to include India in a commercial treaty. Mr. FLOURNOY. The old treaty with Great Britain was concluded in 1815, before this problem ever arose. The CHAIRMAN. Assuming for the sake of argument that India had a quota and her merchants wanted to come in here, then the individuals. who have a right to come in here could keep on doing business in behalf of themselves and India, irrespective of any treaty at all? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing to stop them. That is the point I want to make. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir. Mr. REES. My point was that Mr. Flournoy seemed to think that one of the most important reasons, the principal reason, attached to this legislation, was on the ground that we could carry on trade much more conveniently than we can without this legislation, because we have no treaty with India. I am just directing his attention to the question of treaties, that we have not made any treaties with dependencies of foreign countries. We make them with the sovereign power itself, as I understand it. Mr. FLOURNOY. I did not say that that was the principal reason. I think it is one reason, one thing that should be considered. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Flournoy. Congressman Powell, do you want to say a word now on this bill? |