Telegrams ́n approval of the resolution were also filed by Mr. Fish from congregations, organizations of various sorts, and from individuals, as follows: Congregation Beth Jacob, of Buffalo; New Peoples Synagogue, 206 East Broadway, New York; Palestine Foundation Fund Committee, of Washington Heights, by Alexander Bernardik, chairman; Sons of the Land of Israel, by Joseph Gabriel, secretary; Jewish Extension Center, M. Soltes, director, 31 West One hundred and tenth street; Bedford section of the Brooklyn Jewish Center, by Samuel Rottenberg; Philip Bernstein Sick Benevolent Association, by Louis Weiss: Max Ornstein and David Klein; Jarrchower Young Men's Benevolent Society, by William Tabor, president. and Sam Tannenbaum, secretary: David Wolfsohn Club; First Zionist district, 204 East Broadway, New York: New York Zionist District, by Morris Margulies, chairman, 31 East Thirty-second Street: Brooklyn Zionist district, by Louis Germain, chairman, 550 Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn; Zionist district No. 36, Arverne, Long Island, by Aaron Rosenbaum, president, and L. E. Shapiro, secretary; and from George Gordon Bartle, William Hoyt Worrell, and Hon. William Sulzer.

TELEGRAMS FILED BY HON. CHARLES G. BOND.

Commendatory telegrams were filed by Mr. Bond from the following-named Walzations and individuals:

The Jewish Center of East Flatbush, by Max Brody, president; H. Morgen1341 Fifty-fifth Street: Max Perlman, 1676 Fifty-second; Heinrich Almontowitz, Yetta Abromowitz, 2925 West Twenty-eighth Street; and Louis button "z. Harry Abromowitz. Eva Abromowitz, and Mollie Abromowitz, 2213 Mermaid Avenue, Coney Island. Also a letter of approval from Judge Verander H. Geismar, ex-president Brooklyn Federation of Jewish Charities; Kenan H. Ebin, representing congregations Sons of Israel, of Benshairs, and Shaarei Tfiloh, of Bath Beach; Abraham Mazer, representing the Keren Harend Comm ttee of Bath Beach, Mapleton district: A. Becker, repreng the Zionist organization of district No. 19. comprising Bath Beach, BenThe Mapleton, and Coney Island; and Samuel Kramer, vice president YMHA. of Bath Beach.

STATEMENT BY HON. A. J. SABATH.

he Foreign Affairs Committee, at the time this hearing was sent to the voted to include the following resolution adopted by the American Jemiad Congress in session in Philadelph`a, May 22, 1922.)

- In view of the fact that a resolution has been introduced in the House of Regresentatives by the Hon. Hamilton J. Fish. jr., of New York, favoring the establishment in Palestine of the Jewish homeland in view of the fact that certain Indiavidual Jews speaking in their own names opposed the passage of said resolution at a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the American Jewish Consress in session assembled in Philadelphia strongly urges the speedy passuze of the Fish resolution. We declare that the views of the opponents of Jewish aspirations are in opposition to the views of the large majority of the Jews of America, are in opposition to Jewish tradition, the ideals of the Jewish religion, and to the historie hopes and longings of the Jews the world over. A. J. SABATH.

Mr. FISH. I Word like to ask permission of the committee to listen to Mr. Lipsky.

STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS LIPSKY-Resumed.

Mr. Lipsky. Mr. Chairman, the committee has heard a great deal of evidence and is now probably not in a state of mind to absorb all the facts I may produce in contradiction of what has been said by opposing witnesses. In view of Statements that have been presented here, it is essential that erroneous impressions should be removed as to matters of fact as to cenditions that have been revealed with regard to the Arabs, and with regard to the mandate, and with regard to the Balfour declaration. I therefore would have to ask the indulgence of the committee for a little more time than 15 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. LIPSKY. First of all, I desire again to call to your attention the fact that the Jews of America in an American Jewish congress adopted resolutions in favor of the Balfour declaration; that at this congress there were representatives, as I have stated before, representing 360,000 Jews voting individually; that in addition thereto there were represented national Jewish organizations, including a number of prominent reformed Jewish organizations. The American Jewish Committee, represented by Mr. Louis Marshall, is an organization composed to a large extent of representatives of reformed Jews. Now, inasmuch as the principle of self-determination has been invoked, as far as what the Jewish people desire and what they think to be to their best interest, that decision of the American Jewish Congress represents the self-determination of the Jews of America.

Mr. CONNALLY. Do you mean here in America?

Mr. LIPSKY. Yes.

Mr. CONNALLY. Determined to do what?

Mr. LIPSKY. To save their brethren, who are in distress; to preserve the future of the Jewish people by establishing a homeland in Palestine. This resolution, as adopted in the United States by Jews, has the approval of the vast majority of the Jews in Poland, where they are suffering great disabilities, where they are suffering persecution, and where they feel that the future of their race requires that a haven of refuge or a homeland, or a national home-whatever words may be used-must be established for them in their ancestral land for that purpose. I say, so far as the Jewish people are concerned, they take that stand. The introduction into the committee's record of theological differences of opinion (because they are practically theological differences they are not differences as to problem of life, they are differences of ideas with regard to religious dogma), so far as the Jewish position is concerned, is not determined by theological dogma, but by the needs of life. We refuse to hold up dogmas against the urgency of life that compel us to action. We refuse to indulge in theories or abstract philosophy when life requires action. When we see thousands of Jews lingering in European ports and know their desire to return to Palestine, we cannot turn back to discussion of theology or dogma. When you asked Doctor Philipson what he would do under the circumstances, he appealed to a dogma or a construction of Jewish history, as if that were the answer. He appeals to pious wishes, as if that were the answer.

The Zionists have organized the forces of our people to deal with problems of Jewish life, to plan, to act. Just as Poles organized their governmental adIninistration, and as the Irish were organized to obtain their freedom, we have been organizing for the last 30 years, because we believed that the establishment of a haven of refuge is an urgent need of Jewish life. That has nothing to do with theological dogmas. We are dealing with a practical situation; whatever is being done to organize the Jewish people to deal with this situation, the raising of funds, the establishment of colonies, the direction of immigration, projects for the development of the country to absorb the Jews as they come to the land-all this arises naturally out of our belief that the creation of a national home for the Jew in Palestine is essential for the well-being and future of the Jewish people. It would be folly to expect that in such an enterprise there would not be differences of opinion, there would not be different principles involved, there would not be certain embarassments created for certain groups of individuals. There have been embarrassments created in the United States for those Irish who resented the agitation here for a Irish free state, the propaganda for free Ireland carried on in the United States. At the same time those who felt that this agitation here was essential and indispensable for Ireland's existence could not discontinue their work. We deal with the needs of Jewish life, not with intellectual ideals.

Professor Reed introduced many statements, quotations, citations from letters, etc. He has done this skillfully.

It is curious that many of the facts presented by him have been commented upon, characterized, described, but with no desire to present the whole truth or to present a nonpartisan view of the statements presented. Professor Reed called my attention as a witness sitting here, but not permitted to speak, to a certain letter to Doctor Weizmann in which he was asked whether he would be willing to accept a court of inquiry. Professor Reed said that Doctor Weizmann was willing to accept the court of inquiry but would not comply with other conditions.

I want to contradict Professor Reed's statement on this point. An article appeared in the London T.mes, asking for the appointment of a court of inquiry. Doctor Weizmann replied in the following terms:

SIR: In a leading article which appears in the Times of to-day you indorse Lord Northcliffe's suggestion that the situation in Palestine should be exhaustive y reviewed by a competent and impartial authority.

"I have no desire to invade your columns with a lengthy statement of the Zonist case, which has been fully set forth in a pamphlet just publ shed by the Zionist organ zation, under the title, The Truth About Palestine.

"I will confine myself to saying that for my own part--and I feel sure that I geak for the overwhelm ng majority of my fellow Z onists-I should cor6161) welcome such an inquiry as is suggested, and would ask for nothing better than the fullest possible publicity."

The suggestion as to what sort of inquiry should be made was contained in the last paragraph to which he refers, which is as follows:

**Lord Northcliffe pays a pleasant tribute to the impartiality of the high commiss oner; but the situat on bristles with so many difficult es and misunderstandings that it is high time, in the interests of the Zion sts, of the Palestinian Arabs, and of the Br.tish nation, which is at present responsible for the conduct of Palestinian affairs, that a complete and public investigation of the growing complaints and disturbances should be made by a competent and impartial authority."

Doctor Weismann made this statement in the London Times. The Zionist press immediately echoed that statement and intimated that the Zion st organization courted the appointment of an investigation commission. Professor Reed intimated that there were conditions not acceptable by Doctor Weizmann. Where were these conditions set forth, by whom made?

The CHAIRMAN. Professor Reed indicated that there were certain recommendations proposed by the British mandate that should be postponed until this mater coull be investigated.

Mr. LIPSKY. To whom was it addressed?

The CHAIRMAN. To the press; and Doctor Reed raised the point that the reply of Doctor Weizmann agreed to the investigation, but did not agree to the proposal of the mandate until after the investigation; is that correct?

Mr. LIPSKY. I am not acquainted with that incident. I am speaking of the fact itself, as to whether the Zionists wanted a court of inquiry appointed.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter that Doctor Reed read specifically laid that down. Mr. LIPSKY. Profes or Reed wanted to create the impression that the Zionists were not eager that a special inquiry should be set up. Whether it was this letter or that letter, whether it was here or there, the fact is that Doctor Weizmann, for the Zionist organization, had agreed to it.

The CHAIRMAN. You know the letter I refer to. It was the letter written by the Arab statesman. In it the Arab made two propositions: First, for an investigation, and then a postponement of the ratifications until after an investigation. Doctor Reed said that Doctor Weizmann agreed to the investigation, but he did not agree to the postponement—

Mr. COOPER (interposing). Suppose I were to agree to investigate the question or subject, and say, as Doctor Weizmann did in his letter. “a thorough and complete investization"? Certainly I would not vote on anything which related to the investigation until my own investigation was complete. That would follow as a natural thing.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so.

Mr. COOPER. It inevitably would. What is the object of the investigation? Mr. LIPSKY. This is directed to Doctor Weizmann with regard to an inquiry. It is in answer to a letter which appeared in the London Times with reference to this inquiry.

Professor Reed also sought to convey the impression that Sir Stuart Samuel had. for some cause or other, disassociated himself from the Zion st cause. The fact is that Sir Stuart Samuel had an interview, which appeared in the London Mail on February 19, in which he was quoted as questioning the way the Zionist funds were being administered and in which he said its economic policies were unsound. He was also quoted as disassociating himself from the Jewish nationalists and approving of the proposal in the Northcliffe papers that an impartial commission be sent to Palestine to study conditions. When questioned by the Board of Jewish Deputies of London, on February 19, he denied the accuracy of the interview, saying he had been misrepresented by the Mail. The impression that was attempted to be made here was that Sir Stuart Samuel

himself, a representative of orthodox Jews in England, was not in favor of the Jewish homeland.

Mr. MOORES. Does the Mail still belong to Lord Northcliffe?
Mr. LIPSKY. Yes.

Mr. SABATH. Would it be well for us to take a recess, in view of the fact that a majority of the members who want to hear this find themselves a little hungry and the chances are the gentleman himself would like to get something to eat?

(Thereupon, at 1.30 p. m., the committee recessed to meet at 2.30 o'clock, p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reconvened at the expiration of the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order and Mr. Lipsky will resume his statement.

STATEMENT OF MR. LIPSKY-Resumed.

Mr. LIPSKY. Mention was made by Mr. Reed of Jacob de Haan. It was intimated that Jacob de Haan had entered certain protests against the Jewish national home. This is not correct. Jacob de Haan represents in Palestine a small group of extremely orthodox Jews, and their objection is not to the Jewish national home, but to the composition of the Jewish agency. They claim that the Jewish agency should not be given over to the Zionist organization, but should be shared with an organization known as the Agudath Israel, which is an organization of orthodox Jews. We have a report from Palestine sent by a news agency which reads as follows [reading]:

"The Palestine mandate, De Haan is understood to have proposed to Lord Northcliffe, should protect the rights of the non-Zionist Jews in the same way as the rights of the non-Jews are safeguarded."

De Haan is reported to have had an interview with Lord Northcliffe, in which he made certain statements. He makes a distinction between Zionist Jews and Jews in general. [Reading:]

"He is also believed to have told the publisher that the Agudath Israel claimed for itself the right to be recognized as a Jewish agency for Palestine precisely in the same fashion as the Zionist organization is recognized "In the Palestine mandate.

Reference was made by Mr. Reed to the testimony given before the Haycroft Commission by Doctor Eder. Professor Reed, however, did not read into the record the significant portions of Doctor Eder's remarks. I would like to have in the record other things which have appeared in the same newspaper from which Professor Reed secured his quotation. He merely read before the committee one paragraph. He read the paragraph which related to the predominance of the Jews. This paragraph was referred to by the chairman of the committee. The complete quoted statement is as follows. It is important as bearing upon the Zionist view of the relations of the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine:

Mr. Luke asked:

"There is a certain amount of Zionist literature which is read by the Arabs. You have given us a very reasonable definition of the Balfour declaration, but that is not the definition always given in responsible Zionist_papers.

Doctor EDER. This country has to be built up by the Jew and the Arab. Jews do not come here for domination. I claim predominance. My own view is this: In the remote future there could be a federal state of the Near East. Syria, Mesopotamia, Hedjaz, Palestine, Transjordania could all be independent. Palestine would be predominantly Jewish.

'The CHAIRMAN. The national home does express dominancy?

"Doctor EDER. Yes.

"The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you can get it?

'Doctor EDER. We can not get it at present. It seems that we should be the predominant partner.

"Mr. ELIAS EFF. Therefore you consider the Arabs in Palestine as foreigners and not entitled to a national home?

Every respect would be
We do not think there

"Doctor EDER. I do not say that they are foreigners. paid to their civil and religious rights in this country. is room for an Arab national home in Palestine; their national home is in Syria, Transjordania, Mesopotamia, and Hedjaz.

“Mr. ELIAS EFF. It is very strange for a man sitting in his home to have an intruder come in and say there is no room for you here. You must get out. "Doctor EDER. It does not mean you should go out.

"Mr. ELIAS EFF. When you said there was no room for an Arab national home in Palestine you did not mean that there was no room for the Arab? “Doctor EDER. There is no room for a Jewish and an Arab national home. We can have them both united in one home."

Speaking of the relations between the Arab and the Jews, Doctor Eder said— and I call special attention to these remarks:

"As to our relations with our Arab neighbors. when the Zionist commission came to Palestine in 1918 Doctor Weizmann gave an address to the Arab notables and explained to them that he wished to cooperate with them in the building up of Palestine; that the Balfour declaration implicitly stated that the civil and religious rights of the Arabs would be respected. and that the Jews could not conceive the possibility of any other policy. The Jews, who have so long been subject to persecution in other lands, could never possibly become the persecutors of another people. It was out of the question for the British Government ever to allow such a thing. We have endeavored to carry out that policy, and we have used the good offices of the Palestine-born Jews to bring about an understanding between the Arabs and ourselves. Doctor Weizmann visited Emir Feisel "—

I want to call your attention to this, gentlemen, especially because his name has not been mentioned to this committee. He was during the first years of the war called Prince Feisel; subsequently he is designated as Emir Feisel. He is the son of the King of the Hedjaz, King Hussein, whose letter was read into The record by Professor Reed.

→ Doctor Weizmann visited Emir Feisel in June, 1919, at Maan, and cordial relations were established."

Mr. CONNALLY. Just where from Palestine is Hedjaz?

Mr. Lipsky. South by southeast. It is contiguous to Palestine, either south or a little to the south. Hedjaz is that territory which contains the city of Merca and Medina.

Mr. SMITH. Is it an independent government?

Mr. LIPSKY. It is an independent government under Arabic rule. The King is Hussein, the father of Prince Feisel.

We think that all the promises of the Allies to the Arabs have been faithfully carried out."

You remember that Professor Redd mentioned that none of the promises that had been made to Hussein, the father of Prince Feisel, had ever been carried out; and that this was the promise made by the Allies or made by the British Government through a representative in Egypt, and this promise, which had teen in writing, has never been carried out.

We think that all of the promises of the Allies to the Arabs have been faithfully carried out. An Arab King is in Mesopotamia ”—

One of the family of Hussein was established as the King of Mesopotamia, and Arabic dominance in Mesopotamia is assured by the British Government

And the Emir Abdulla is in Transjordania. The Hedjaz is a free country under King Hussein. We ask the Arabs to recognize our claims in Palestine as granted by the Balfour declaration and confirmed at San Remo by the treaty of Sevres. There is room for a much larger population in Palestine, which has a much smaller population per square mile than Syria.”

I am asking that this go into the record in order to indicate the method employed by Professor Reed in perverting the facts. He does not seem interested in the truth, but only in his side of the case. He makes a partial statement, taking a sentence out of an interview or out of a stenographic report of an official proceeding and tries to concentrate attention upon that sentence, excluding everything else from consideration.

Professor Reed made out what seemed to be a case with regard to the mandate and tried to make it appear as if the national home for the Jewsish people in Palestine was involved in a fixed piece of legislation with regard to how Palestine is to be governed.

The CHAIRMAN, May I interrupt you? Perhaps you can inform me about this matter, because I am very much in the dark about it. The first. official statement was the letter of October, 1915, from the British high commissioner to the Arabs. The next official act was the Balfour declaration of October,