That brings up the next question. What is happening in the northeast portion of Ireland? It is an important question for every American to have answered to his satisfaction, because our heritage is one wherein we believe and have fought for liberty and freedom, not only in our own land, but in every part of the globe, from the time of the foundation of the Republic up to the present time.

This brings me to the consideration of the conditions that exist in northeast Ireland for which we unfortunately must bear some of the blame, because our money is being used to pay 17,000 secret police that at the present time maintain a reign of terror in that portion of the globe.

We have heard reference by Mr. Rice and others here today about the Special Powers Act, and I think you realize what that is. The Special Powers Act makes a police state out of the northeast portion of Ireland.

Under the provisions of the Special Powers Act, a policeman may enter the home of any citizen without a warrant, at any time of the day or night, and arrest any of the occupants without any charge, and without the necessity of preferring any charge against him. This person may be lodged in a jail for an indefinite period of time, although recently there has been some amendment to that to limit the period of time during which he may be held incommunicado and without any charge being preferred against him.

However, they have cleverly devised another scheme of permitting the prisoner to be released after an allotted period and then rearresting him; and they can keep on doing that all year long.

By the provisions of the Special Powers Act, any man who sings an Irish song calling for the liberation of his own country, may be imprisoned for a period up to 14 years.

Under the provisions of the Special Powers Act, any Irishman living in that section of the country, cut off, as we see it, may be given 14 years in jail for waving an Irish flag, in his own country.

We, unfortunately, cannot take the position that we are not part of it, because we are financing it to the tune of $150,000,000. That statement has been made by Congressman Fogarty already and has never been refuted. We are financing that type and kind of program.

It certainly is not in keeping with the American heritage. Our forefathers fought against these very things. They fought against unlawful search and seizure. They fought against imprisonment with the writ of habeas corpus suspended. Everything that is now being done through the use of our money, our forefathers in 1775 fought against and they started the War of Independence to wipe it out on this side of the Atlantic.

We cannot just say that it is none of our business and I would like for the moment to refer to Congressman Burleson's statement or comment with respect to another feature of it, and that is whether or not we might be accused of interfering in the business of Great Britain if we were to take action as indicated by the various resolutions that have been presented here.

We have taken on the role of the leader in ideas and ideals of democracy throughout the world. We cannot isolate Ireland in that connection. If we have done it-and I think very properly so-in various other countries that were fighting for their liberty; if we took a

stand for a democratic position when that question came before our Government, there is no reason in the world why we should halt when the question of Ireland is presented.

There is one thing that I would like to put at rest here today and that is the suggestion, or the idea suggested by the questions presented by Congressman Burleson with respect to what would happen to the people in the north of Ireland if the whole country were united. We see here clearly demonstrated what Mr. Reilly referred to earlier in the hearing; that is, that the propaganda has been successful in confusing the whole Irish issue. The fact that Congressman Burleson has that idea in mind attests the success of that campaign and I compliment him for the forthright manner in which he asked the question in the first instance, because we would much prefer to have a question like that out in the clear light of day, where we can answer it, and where the question can be considered, than to have it whispered in conversations in corridors and other places.

Let me say that we have an experience with respect to what happens to minorities, and I think it was referred to by Charles Rice previously. Accompanying the propaganda you have the idea always presented that the peaceful force of the invader is keeping different groups within the country invaded separate and apart from one another. For instance, they say that if the British force of imperialism were removed from Palestine that the hordes of Arabs would swoop down and wipe out the Jews in no time at all and that what was protecting the Jews in Palestine was the peaceful group of Britains who were keeping these people separated.

Palestine is a free nation and the hordes of Arabs did not come down and wipe out the Jews, and within the territory of Palestine itself Jews and Arabs get along very well together today.

In India, the Moslems and the Hindus were supposed to start a holy war, so that there would not be a living creature left alive in the territory of India, if Britain were to remove its forces from that country. But Britain has removed its forces and the other day we had a pact signed by the leaders of both of these groups, so that in a very short period they were able to get together very well.

So far as Ireland is concerned, if the British will leave, where they have no business to be, these people will get along among themselves. They will get along very nicely. There will be no differences of opinion and there will not be the slightest recrimination against anybody. It is British influence which is there and which is keeping the people apart and stirring up trouble at the present time. Whereas if you remove the cause of the evil, you will have no evil.

One of the things that Congressman Javits referred to I would like to discuss. That is with respect to the effect of partition on the economy of the country. I think by his comment Congressman Javits has shown that he has studied the situation very carefully, because it does have a very serious effect upon the economy of the country.

In many European countries, you have one section of the country industrial and the other agricultural. That is true in Italy, France, Germany and many other countries. One way of crippling the economy of a country is to put up customs barriers between the agricultural and the industrial sections of the country.

For instance, if in the United States we had customs barriers placed around, let us say, Kansas and Iowa, so that all of the clothing and all

of the manufactured goods that went into these two States could go in only upon the payment of duty by the people in Kansas and Iowa, and in return, the people in the neighboring States had to pay a duty on the farm products that were sent from Kansas and Iowa into the manufacturing areas, we would really have a completely confusing economy right here in this country. That is what is happening in Ireland.

Now, to come back again to the question about whether or not there should be an election only in the north as against an election in the whole country. It presupposes that the six-county area constitutes a legal entity, separate and apart from the rest of the country, if you are going to limit the plebiscite to this area. The fact is that the six counties should not be now, as they never were prior to 1920, a separated part of Ireland. If they are to be permitted to set up a separate and distinct country within Ireland, then granting the right to do so rests with the people of all Ireland, not just those in the affected area, and certainly not with the British Parliament of Westminster. If any portion of the United States wished to join Canada or Mexico or just establish a separate and distinct country within the United States, then the permission to do so would have to emanate from all the people of the United States, not just from the people of he affected area, and certainly not from either Canada or Mexico.

The situation in Ireland is no different. This area was cut off by Great Britain, because it was the largest part of Ireland, which they could effectively continue to dominate. They took as much territory as the Unionist voters of the Belfast area could control, without regard to the nature of the various sections, which were added to the Belfast area. To hold a vote only in this section, and then apply the principle that the majority vote should control, would be a farce, since that was the very reason that this section was created. We insist most strongly that only the people of all Ireland have the right to divide up the nation if they so desire. Neither the government in either area, nor any group of political leaders, in or out of Ireland, have that right. The people of all Ireland are the sole judges in this

matter.

Congressman Burleson has asked if the vote of all Ireland would not impose on the northern people a will that was perhaps not their own. Of course it would. That happens every time the majority votes in any election and thereby imposes its will upon the minority. The majority in Ireland voted in 1918 and in 1920 for complete independence. But the will of the majority was defeated by partitioning this small area, in which most of the minority group resided. If then a vote is to be taken only in the six counties, then why not a vote county by county or even a vote person by person? Why not let every man decide for himself? Why not? Because chaos would result, and that is why in every democracy the will of the majority must prevail. So it should be in Ireland-the vote of all the people should be taken on the issue of partition directly, and let the majority decision stand. If you assert that the minority as set apart in the six counties should have a separate vote, then I say that when that vote is taken you should again partition the new minority wheresoever it appears and let that minority rejoin the rest of Ireland. But when you are finished, there will be no six counties, but only a small remnant of that area showing a majority vote in favor of continued union with Britain.

I do not want to prolong my testimony, Mr. Chairman, because there are many speakers here from various parts of the country.

I should like to compliment the committee on their generosity in permitting us to come here and speak. But it is important for us to know that it is not any longer an Irish question, particularly when Ireland is not in the Atlantic Pact and cannot be in the Atlantic Pact so long as one of the provisions of the Atlantic Pact is to the effect that each signatory to the Atlantic Pact guarantees the political and territorial integrity of each of the other countries that are signatories. That would mean that Mr. MacBride the Minister for Internal Affairs, in signing, if he wanted to join the Atlantic Pact, would in effect give full approval to the British occupation of a portion of his own country.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Are there any questions?

Mr. JAVITS. I would like to say that I am glad to see Mr. O'Dwyer here. In the last campaign, in 1948, he was my doughty and eloquent opponent. And he is carrying out that tradition on the question on which he is speaking here today.

I am glad that Mr. O'Dwyer emphasized the matter with relation to the economy of Ireland, because there is involved not only that, but there are involved the interests of the United States because of its support of the economy of the United Kingdom. It only underlines what I would like to make more clear again, and what I know he agrees with, that this is serious business and what is being sought here is a very serious result.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'ĎWYER. Thank you.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. O'Dwyer, I am glad to know, on the basis of Congressman Javits' remarks, that the question of Irish partition is still unpartisan.

Mr. JAVITS. Completely.

Mr. MANSFIELD. You will furnish for the record the prepared statement that you referred to?

Mr. O'DWYER. I will, sir. Let me say that when I was compaigning against Congressman Javits at the last election, the question of Ireland was not at issue.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The next witness is Mr. Matthias Harford.

STATEMENT OF MATTHIAS HARFORD

Mr. HARFORD. Mr. Chairman and gentemen of the committee, my name is Matthias Harford, of Chicago. I am president of the Illinois District Council of the American League for an Undivided Ireland. Incidentally I happen to be past commander, department of Illinois, of the Disabled American Veterans.

I am speaking here to urge you to support the Fogarty resolution. I speak, not as an Irishman, although I was born and raised in Ireland, but I speak as one of the millions of Americans who crossed the ocean to fight for certain definite, basic principles of democracy. Those principles are universal. They should be applied universally, without fear or favor, without discrimination, against any nation or any people.

I sincerely believe that in using its good offices to effect a friendly solution of Irish partition, the Government and the Congress of the United States will be not merely serving the best interests of the people of Ireland, but primarily the best interests of the United States. We can render no greater service to our own country at the present time than to solidify western European defenses against communism. The unification of Ireland will not only place at western Europe's disposal the great harbors and airports that they control, which control the Atlantic shipping lanes, but will also have an incalculable psychological value in offsetting the insidious propaganda that America has embarked upon a crusade of imperialism.

Your distinguished colleague, Congressman Burleson, of Texas, in seeking to clarify one part of this subject asked for analogies. If I am in order at this time, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to suggest two. May I do so?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Surely.

Mr. HARFORD. One: At the time of its war for freedom 30 years ago Ireland was deprived of six of its counties by arbitrary fiat of the British Parliament on the pretext that a majority of the inhabitants of that area were Tories, loyal to England.

At the end of our War of Independence in 1776, the State of New York had a preponderence of Tories. I ask you to consider this. Suppose England at that time had laid claim to the State of New York and had occupied it by a military force on the ground that the majority of its population were Tories. Would the people of America have considered that seriously? What actually happened? How did the American people handle that Tory issue? President Washington confiscated the property of those Tories and chased them out of the country. That is a historical fact.

Now, the people of Ireland are not suggesting anything so drastic as that. All they are asking is that the United States use its friendly offices to bring about a rational solution of this problem in the interest not merely of Ireland, but of England and of the United States itself. Now my second analogy. In laying claim to Irish soil, whether it be a foot or an acre or a county, if we admit the right of the British Government to occupy Irish county, then we must admit her right to occupy all of the 32, because her claim to occupy even 1 county of the 32 counties is based on nothing but brute force, military occupation. That, gentlemen, is precisely the claim that Mr. Hitler made in Belgium, in Denmark, and in Norway. We cannot even consider it.

Gentlemen, out of consideration for your patience and the limitation of time I would like to extend my remarks in writing later, if I may, and close at the present time; thank you.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

EXTENSION OF ORAL TESTIMONY BY MATTHIAS J. HARFORD, CHICAGO, AT HEARING BEFORE THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

To indicate how even social service can be used as an agency of oppression consider the administration of the unemployment compensation law in Britishoccupied Ireland. A worker discovered to have national sympathies or to favor the extension of republican rule to all Ireland is discharged from his job. Suppose he applies for unemployment compensation pending the finding of other employment. Willingness to accept an offer of work being a basic eligibility re