whole we prefer in the Department, I would like to say this first. There are certain minor provisions in the bill, certain technical aspects of it, which I will not take the time to cover in my testimony, but which I am going to ask you to consider when Mr. Shaughnessy has an opportunity of talking with you about it later.

Now I am very much in favor of the bill. And let me add that the State Department is also very much in favor of the bill. I do not know whether they have expressed themselves, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Not yet, General.

Attorney General BIDDLE. I have discussed it with the Acting Secretary. The chairman has also been kind enough to authorize me to say, which I knew but did not want to say without his authority, that he has a letter from the President heartily endorsing the bill, which I understand he will present to your committee later.

I think you know, of course, that this bill follows the pattern of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which the Congress adopted last year by a very large vote. The actual effect is approximately the same. I am advised that under our quota system the admission of, shall I say East Indians, to use a general term, would be approximately 100 under the bill.

I think that the two things that move me particularly in this matter are:

1. What India is doing as an ally of the United States and the other Allies in this war.

2. The wisdom of passing this bill in our relation to India herself. And that last point can be dealt with briefly. India is a great and a rising market. I have always believed that trade and exchange of goods strengthens very much decent relations with another country. I hope very much that in the future the United States will be able to increase her international trade. I look very much in the future, after the war, to India, China, and Latin America as the three great markets for expansion of trade, and for expansion of our trade. Industrial development in India has grown amazingly fast during the war. However, I will not dwell on that aspect.

I should like to say a word or two about what India has done as a fighting ally in this war. From a pre-war strength of about 160,000 men, the Indian Army has grown, entirely by volunteer enlistment, to a total of between two and two and a half million men, probably the largest volunteer army in history. It is twice as great as India's manpower was in the last great war.

In August 1939, a few weeks before the outbreak of the European war, the first Indian divisions were ill-equipped and without training in any of the mechanics of warfare, when they landed in Egypt. By 1945 Indian troops had fought with distinction on the battle fronts of three continents-Europe, Africa, and Asia. Their battle honors. cover Norway, France, Libya, Abyssinia, Eritrea, Italian Somaliland, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Malay, and Burma.

Indian troops played a conspicuous part in Field Marshal Wavell's Libyan offensive of 1941, and then in the great advance of Montgomery's Eighth Army all the way from El Alamein to Tunisia. To them goes almost the entire credit for the conquest of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. They were by far the largest in rumbers and the most heavily engaged of the British and British Empire forces in the

Abyssinian campaign. They were responsible for forestalling German designs in Syria, Iran, and Iraq.

Speaking of these campaigns in London on September 16, 1944, Lord Wavell said:

Without the assistance of India, both in troops and in material, we most certainly could not have held the Middle East, and the Middle East has been, I think I can claim, the keystone of our present successes.

The record of one Indian division, the fourth, deserves special citation. In 2 years continuous fighting from Abyssinia to Libya, the division captured more than 100,000 Italians and Germans, exclusive of enemy personnel which it may have killed and wounded, and military equipment which it may have destroyed or captured.

At present more than three Indian divisions are fighting in Italy. One division was in Greece until recently. Most of the troops guarding and garrisoning north Africa and the Middle East countries right up to Persia are from the Indian Army.

The highest award for valor in the British Commonwealth isthe Victoria Cross. Out of a total of 120 awards so far, India has won 21, as compared to 11 awards to Australia, 7 to New Zealand, 3 to Canada, and 1 to South Africa.

Paying a tribute on February 27, 1945, "to the splendid fighting record," to use his words, of the Indian troops in his command, our own Gen. Mark Clark, commander in chief of the Allied Armies in Italy, said:

No obstacle has succeeded in delaying these troops or lowering their high morale in fighting spirit. I salute the brave soldiers of these three great Indian divisions. And Gen. Lucian Truscott, now in command of the American Fifth Army in Italy, said:

The Indian troops in this theater won the respect and admiration of all Allied soldiers with whom they have been associated. The successes they have achieved in a long campaign under trying conditions of weather and terrain bespeak their soldierly progress. During the brief period under my command they have executed difficult movements and accomplished successfully the most difficult operations. It is an honor for any commander to have such troops under him.

It seems to me appropriate that the committee should have the point of view of our American generals in the field working with these Indian troops, in considering this bill.

Now, something has been said about the danger of opening quotas. That, gentlemen, is in the hands of Congress, and I trust the Congress will exercise in the future, as they have in the past, a wise balance in considering these matters. It is a matter of degree, a matter of judgment, a matter of balance. It is in your hands, and I know that you will not take any risky chances. But this seems to me an awfully good bet to take.

It

One thing occurs to me that would seem to be relevant here. has been said: "We are learning in this war that the test of a people is their aim, not their color." I think that is particularly apropos here.

Gentlemen, that is, roughly, my statement. It seems to be a wise measure, and one that will help our relations from every point of view, and these fellows deserve it.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Chairman, may I raise a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Ask, or raise a question?

Mr. DOLLIVER. Raise a question. Mr. Attorney General, there has been some discussion, quite apart from the provisions of this bill, about permitting the people of East Indian extraction who are now in this country, to apply for and become citizens. Does your Department take any position upon that particular matter? That is not a part of this bill, however.

The CHAIRMAN. There is another bill, but this has something to do with it.

Mr. CELLER. This is part of this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just calling attention to the fact that Congressman Walter Lynch will be heard at 11:30 on the bill before us, and we can decide what we wnat to do.

Mr. CELLER. I think it is pertinent.

Attorney General BIDDLE. It seems to me that if you admit Indians, you should not discriminate against Indians already resident here. And I think in section 303, the first section of H. R. 173, that provision is in the bill. I can see no logic in excluding them. As I remember, there are about 3,000, not over 4,000-between three and four thousand.

The CHAIRMAN. Would they not have to meet all the other requirements of the naturalization laws as to character, education, and so forth?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Certainly.

Mr. CELLER. The Lynch bill provides there shall be a break-down of those restrictions. The Lynch bill provides that no certificate of arrival will be required.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter for the committee to discuss later. We do not want to go into the Lynch bill now. We are confining ourselves to these three bills at present.

Mr. DOLLIVER. This bill does permit that thing, I suggest. And as I understand, Mr. Biddle, you as Attorney General have no objection to that?

Attorney General BIDDLE. On the contrary, I am in favor of it. Mr. McCowEN. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Biddle, that Congress has nothing to do with the matter of quotas?

Attorney General BIDDLE. No; quite the contrary. It shows how careful you have to be. Perhaps I talked a little too fast.

I said, Mr. Congressman, that Congress is the body which will always decide quotas, always make the policy, so that this talk about the fear of quotas being wildly opened, seems to me a little irrelevant, because, gentlemen, it is entirely in your hands. And I cannot conceive of Congress acting foolishly in that connection. Does that answer the question?

Mr. McCowEN. Yes; that is right.

Mr. DOLLIVER. May I pursue my inquiry a bit further?
Attorney General BIDDLE. Of course.

Mr. DOLLIVER. Do you consider that the conduct of the East. Indian troops in the war has any relationship to these East Indians who are now in this country who would be permitted to apply for citizenship?

Attorney General BIDDLE. None at all, because the East Indians in this country have not fought in the war.

Mr. DOLLIVER. You do not claim any relationship there?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Not at all. I cannot see any, sir. Mr. DOLLIVER. Does that have any relationship to our policy toward India, the admission of those individuals to citizenship?

Attorney General BIDDLE. It seems to me it would be a little foolish to say "We will admit for citizenship people living in India, and those living here for years, we will exclude." I cannot follow the logic of that argument.

Mr. McCowEN. Didn't you mean the reverse of that?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Yes. I tried to meet the question.
Mr. DOLLIVER. I was trying to bring that out.

Attorney General BIDDLE. It seems to me men living here, who know our ways, should be a part of the group.

Mr. CELLER. The fact that the Indians have contributed so much should be taken into consideration on the quota.

Attorney General BIDDLE. I think toward the whole race, their war effort is enormously important. I do not believe that happens to touch the few Indians of this country as much as the great mass of fighters abroad at the fronts.

Mr. ALLEN. Do we have any record of the number of sons from the homes of Indians who are here, East Indians who are resident in the United States, who are in the service?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Mr. Allen, I do not know the number of sons, but I think those 4,000 include all of the Indians of the United States.

Mr. ALLEN. But about how many East Indians do we have in the American service?

Attorney General BIDDLE. That I do not know.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Shaughnessy, do you have that?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No; I do not have that.

Dr. ALI KHAN (national president of India Welfare League). I can give you that information.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us the number of sons of Indians in this country who are now serving in the armed forces of the United States, First, what is your name, sir?

Dr. ALI KHAN. My name is Mubarek Ali Khan. I am national president of the India Welfare League.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us the figures?

Dr. ALI KHAN. There are approximately 215 Indians in the armed forces of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Two hundred fifteen.

Dr. ALI KHAN. That is right, in the armed forces.

Mr. ALLEN. They were all born here?

Dr. ALI KHAN. No, no; the majority of them are newcomers. Here are some of the boys who were born here [exhibits photographs]. There is a boy 3 years in the armed forces on the other side, an old boy. And there is a young fellow, in Germany now.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Are they citizens?

Dr. ALI KHAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the census of 1943, 910 were born here. Only about 3,139 were aliens in this country. And these are the sons of the aliens?

Dr. ALI KHAN. That is right.

Attorney General BIDDLE. Any more questions?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe so.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask the Attorney General a question. My position on the question of immigration has always been not to break down our immigration laws. I think everybody on the committee will agree that I have been consistent in that. I base my position on that.

The CHAIRMAN. You may call me as a witness.

Mr. ALLEN. I just do not want to break down our laws. Now last year we broke down the law to some extent. Now, we are asked to break down the law again with reference to another 400,000,000 people. Now, we have other groups over there. We have the Koreans, and the people of Siam, and I do not know how many other groups hundreds of millions. And I am just wondering what is going to be the end of this thing. Are we going down the line and break the law down, or are we going to stop somewhere?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Well, that is for you gentlemen to determine. Let me say what the result of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act was. I do not believe any act of Congress could have drawn the two peoples more closely together than the repeal of that act.

Now, it is tremendously important in this coming world that we have friendly relations with these great nations. And I cannot believe that Americans, for. instance, would be very eager to trade in the Orient if the orientals treated them as untouchables. It does not seem that is the type of thing we want to develop in the great new world to come.

I know we all want greater production and greater trade. And it seems to me, to answer your question specifically, where there is an act before you, a specific act, whether it deals with the Koreans or the Chinese or the Indians, that it does not in any substantive manner affect our own domestic economy and our own future, but nevertheless, as to treating the people of those great countries as human beings, as we treat other people of other countries, those acts are wise to pass.

And I do not draw the line between Chinese and Koreans and East Indians. It seems to me it is a practical and sane thing to do. And the argument, "Where are you going to draw the line," is always raised when any new policy is being questioned. And you draw the line where your wise judgment as members of this committee dictates. That is the only answer I can give.

Mr. ALLEN. Are we liable to run into a little confusion with Great Britain? Perhaps you would prefer not to answer that.

Attorney General BIDDLE. Not at all. I know of no confusion with Great Britain. I think Great Britain would welcome this.

Mr. ALLEN. The advantage of passing this bill has been stressed on the basis of trade. Now, Great Britain will want to hold everything she can in the way of commercial trade?

Attorney General BIDDLE. Well, I think you will find that Great Britain is friendly to the passage of this bill. I have found that sentiment among my British friends.

Mr. CELLER. The British Government in India favors this legislation.

Mr. ARNOLD. We can sell them what Great Britain cannot supply. Attorney General BIDDLE. I think we can give them a little competition.