Imagini ale paginilor

Mr. CELLER. The Indian Government favors the passage of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have been very kind. Thank you very much.

Attorney General BIDDLE. Thank you.

Mr. McCowEN. I want to ask one question: Is it not true that the Indians are fighting for themselves where they are fighting for their lives?

Attorney General BIDDLE. That is true.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.

Mr. McCowen. Do you think that has any particular force as an argument on this question?

The CHAIRMAN. On the basis of the census of 1890, only 75 Indians would be entitled to enter under the quota. But under our permanent bill, enacted in 1924, we give these small countries just 100. They are subject to all the regulations and requirements of the immigration law, as to physical condition, and moral character, and so forth. They do not have to come in. They may not. Maybe 1, 2, or 10, may come in. That is all it does. It removes the discrimination against a country we hope after the war to do business with. That is practically the sum and substance of the whole question.

Mr. McCowEN. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear all of the testimony yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Attorney General BIDDLE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Celler, I am going to give you until 11:30. You may continue your hearings next week. Give us one more witness.

Mr. CELLER. Mrs. Gifford Pinchot, will you come to the stand? The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Pinchot.

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA BRYCE (GIFFORD) PINCHOT Mrs. PINCHOT. Mr. Chairman and members of the ocmmittee, I have come here really as an individual. The last time I went abroad, I put on my passport that I was a politician and a housewife. Well, I have been asked by various people to speak here. I want to say I am not an Indian expert. I have never visited the country, and have never lived there.

The point I want to make is that there are plenty of people here who talk with authority about why the Indians want this legislation. But the point I wish to make is something quite different, namely, that in my opinion America stands to gain as much as India from the passage of this proposed legislation.

Should this bill become law I think it would bring to America advantages that are quite definite and concrete, and that those advantages are from the immediate point of view as well as the longdistance point of view.

Of course we all know that the war in the Pacific is going to be long and tough and bitter. And as the Attorney General has said, hundreds of thousands of American boys are in India and other Asiatic points.

All the reports we get I think tend to show that American prestige is very high in Asia. Wendell Willkie spoke about the reservoir of good will for America that he found everywhere in his travels. And while there have been certain fluctuations in this good will, it certainly is a factor that counts heavily in American favor, both now and in the years to come.

Our record in the Philippines has been clear for all to see. And that is a most important factor in the situation. The Asiatic peoples believe that our professions of democracy are sincere. The Japanese know that this good will toward America is a thing that they have to fight, and their propaganda is slanted to destroy that faith and break down that good will of Asiatic peoples for Americans. They have been working overtime to indoctrinate the natives of Burma and India and the occupied provinces and countries. They want those people to believe that American democracy is only skin deep, and that the Atlantic Charter we are fighting for is not a Pacific charter.

Bose, the Indian Quisling leader, is broadcasting day after day along that line to the Indian people, from Burma. And always Bose charges that the Americans are hypocrites. And he goes back to this fact of discrimination in the matter of naturalization.

So that I think the removal of this discrimination, which, as the Attorney General told you, had been the case with China, is going to be greater than anything we can imagine. Perhaps not 10,000 people in this country know that that legislation was passed by Congress last year, removing the restrictions against the Chinese. But there are literally millions of people in Asia who know it. And to them it has become a symbol.

I think the Attorney General meant that when he said if we remove the discrimination against India, that the result would be felt not only in India, but all through Asia, to a degree difficult to understand.

In this day and generation, America cannot afford, in my opinion, to discriminate against any people on the ground of race, color, or creed. To do so is to deny our own ideals of freedom and equality, and it undermines faith in our sincerity. That is a matter for us also in our own minorities. We know what we are trying to do there.

Owen Lattimore, who incidentally is one of the very few experts on the Far East who makes sense to the layman-on the basis of honestto-goodness economics, accurate, down-to-earth observation and deep understanding of what makes the wheels go round-suggests that after the war there is going to be a great deal of shopping around, so to speak, among the smaller Asiatic nations to see into whose orbit they would prefer to "cuddle,” if I may use that phrase.

These weaker peoples are thinking in political terms nowadays. They are adding up the political score. We have had the idea that they were politically immature. I do not believe the evidence shows that they are. They are not so retarded in their thinking as we suppose. They are thinking in political terms all along the line. They are adding up the political score, and certainly are going to try to veer to that direction which gives them the most advantage.

Owen Lattimore, in speaking about this new doctrine of political attraction, says that the three countries that have the most political attraction, or shall we call it "sex appeal" toward the Asiatic people are America, Russia, and China. The other imperial nations are not in the picture.

Now Russia has it for certain definite reasons. China has it for certain definite reasons. All of them are different. But America has it to an outstanding degree. Owen Lattimore says that we have at present the clearest form of attraction for all Asia.

Our word is contrasted with the vague promises of self-government or dominion status by the other nations which are “subject to the discount of an obstinate suspicion.”

Those countries know that we stand for democracy. They know that we have a republican form of government, not a totalitarian one, and they see that in America the worker has certain rights and safeguards, and on the other hand, the businessman has unlimited opportunity

As Mr. Dodge said yesterday, the businessmen in the East are important. They want not only political freedom, but they want freedom from the colonial system which is their set-up now against native industry and trade.

The Attomey General made several points that I was going to make, and I will not repeat. I hope I have not taken too much of your time in discussing this doctrine of attraction set out by Owen Lattimore. But it seems to fit squarely into the argument which I began with, namely, that America stands to gain as much as India if you gentlemen take affirmative action on this legislation you are now considering. I suppose it can be said that it is a symbol of democracy, and there are times in the history of the world when symbols speak more loudly than cannon.

I think this bill puts an unequalled opportunity into our hands. We can make good will for ourselves among hundreds of millions of people at practically no cost, certainly so far as our economy is concerned, by any people coming in. We can help to create that concert of nations without which a permanent peace is out of reach. Perhaps America has never had the chance to accomplish so much at so little expense.

Mr. ALLEN. Mrs. Pinchot, you take the position that America has as much to gain as India?

Mrs. Pinchot. It seems so to me.

Mr. ALLEN. May I ask the gentle lady if the yardstick should not be, not only on this, but any piece of legislation, that our Nation should gain most in anything we do here in America? In other words, should we not give our first consideration to ourselves?

Mrs. Pinchot. I do not believe I was making a perfect balance. Yes, I think so; very much so. Well, I am for it for a variety of

I am also a church woman, and I belong to various organizations. But it seems to me that America has to gain, and that is why I speak for it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. George V. Allen, Chief, Division of Middle Eastern Affairs of the Department of State, has a statement to present, and then we will consider this hearing adjourned. Mr. Allen.




Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Acting Secretary of State has asked me to present the following statement on his behalf:

In response to an invitation by your committee, I am glad to make known the views of the Department of State with regard to this proposed legislation. The Department strongly favors the purposes of the legislation, and believes that the existing discrimination against the people of India in our immigration and naturalization legislation should be removed.

India is a prominent member of the United Nations. Its soldiers are fighting shoulder to shoulder with American troops in Italy, Burma, and elsewhere. We are asking for and confidently expecting their continued support until the ultimate and final defeat of Japan. Japanese propaganda officials are endeavoring to sow seeds of distrust between us and our allies in the Orient. We know that they shall fail. At the same time, we are aware that our efforts to bring our friends in the Orient, and particularly the 400,000,000 people of India, into full and enthusiastic cooperation with us in the war effort and in our endeavors to build a strong and peaceful post-war world are not consistent with existing barriers against Indians contained in our immigration legislation. Declarations such as the Atlantic Charter are unimpressive when no Indian can be naturalized as an American citizen or immigrate into the United States.

The people of India understand fully that the proposed legislation will permit a minimum number of Indian immigrants to enter the United States each year. There is no difference of view on this point. I recommend to your committee, however, that the principle of discrimination as regards both immigration and naturalization be removed in order that America may approach India with dignity and justice in our relations with that great nation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Allen. We will consider the hearing on this bill adjourned until next Tuesday at 10:30 a. m.

We now have before us H. R. 1624 by Congressman Lynch, and a similar bill, H. R. 1746, by Congressman Powell. But Mr. Lynch introduced his bill first, and is entitled to first consideration under his authorship.

(The bill referred to is as follows:)

[H. R. 1624, 79th Cong., 1st sess.) A BILL To permit approximately three thousand natives of India who entered the United States prior to

July 1, 1924, to become naturalized

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding the provisions of section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (U. S. C., title 8, sec: 703), any native of India who entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924, and who has resided in the United States since that time may become naturalized upon compliance with all other provisions of the naturalization laws, subject to the following exceptions:

(a) No declaration of intention or certificate of arrival shall be required, and no additional residence shall be required before the filing of petition for certificate of citizenship;

(b) The petition for certificate of citizenship shall be filed within 1 year after the enactment of this Act; and

(c) There shall be attached to the petition a certificate from a naturalization examiner stating that petitioner has appeared before him for examination.


Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee I desire to say that I am in no wise opposed in principle to the bill that has been introduced by my colleague from New York, Mr. Celler. I assume that if his bill passes, the people in whom I am most interested will have been taken care of. However, if his bill does not pass, then you have my bill to consider, affecting some 3,000 people of Indian blood.

The CHAIRMAN. It is about 3,139.

Mr. LYNCH. I put 3,000 in, because there were only about 3,035 before 1924. And I believe the other admissions of about a thousand were after 1924. But we will not dispute about that. If it is 3,139 why you can take care of 3,139.

Mr. ALLEN. How long have they been in the United States?
Mr. LYNCH. Why, prior to 1924. That would be 21 years.
Mr. ALLEN. In other words, all of these came in before that time?

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. That is all I have sought to provide for in the bill. Congressman Celler's bill includes everybody, but my bill includes only those who have been in the United States since 1924.

Mr. ALLEN. Prior to the quota act?

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. And at that time, if you will recall, I think the decision that held that the East Indians were not within the purview of the admissions was handed down. I think it was rendered by the Supreme Court in 1923.

The CHAIRMAN. The decision was that they were not eligible for citizenship.

Mr. Lynch. That is right. But there had been a previous decision which made it doubftul, so these people might be said to have come into the country under color of right, even if not under color of the skin. Under those circumstances it would seem that we may very well take into consideration the advisability of admitting them.

They have been over here over 21 years. They have engaged in industry, adopted our form of living and our habits. They have married, and their children are American citizens.

Mr. ALLEN. On that point, may I ask you a question?
Mr. Lynch. Yes.

Mr. ALLEN. Whom have they married? Have they married Caucasians?

Mr. LYNCH. In many instances that has been so.
Mr. ALLEN. Well, have they ever married into the Ethiopian race?
Mr. Lynch. Not that I know of.
Mr. ALLEN. I am just trying to find out.

Mr. LYNCH. I really do not know. But it would seem to me that these people who have been here for this length of time should be given consideration. My colleague from New York seems to have some little objection to my bill.

Mr. ALLEN. How do you feel about his bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Friendly, very friendly.

Mr. Lynch. I am friendly with everybody: It was stated that my bill on page 2, line 1, provides that no declaration of citizenship or certificate of arrival shall be required. I do not believe that is a very valid objection, for this reason; that these people have been here for,

« ÎnapoiContinuați »