The Waterbury Democrat., 1944-08-28

Officially. Phillips came home for personal reasons. Actually, however, he was asked to leave London because. last year. he wrote a letter to President Roose. welt criticizing British policy in India and recommending Indian independence.
 She Phillips letter. published il: this column on July 25. has caused the cables to burn up between Washington and London eyel since. The British first demand ed an official explanation from the State Department. Later, Foreign Minister Eden personally demand cd Phillips recall.
 In addition. the British demand cd the recall of George Merrell from New Delhi. MeTreii, a ca- reer man Of long standing. has been acting chief Of the U. s. mission in India during Phillips absence, and was sympathetic toward Indian Independence. He has resigned and will return shortly.
 Phillips technically Is stu the Presidents special Anbassa- der te India, thongh fer the last few mengbs he has been at- tacie6 te EisenbeweT's personal staff ip London ie advise en French, Belgian and etheT Ens Fepean problems. Since Fhii- lips was 0n EistenhoweV's staff, Hl0t accredited ee the British government, his Eeesll is ev0n- sidered highly unusual, almost without precedent.
 In effect. the British objected to the fact that Phillips made a report to his chief, the President of the United States. regarding India. Members Of the dlpl0- matte corps point out that, ip 1888, the United States asked British Ambassad0r Lionel 6ackyille-W West t0 leave Washington because he wrote to Q private U. 6. citizen advocating the election Of Grover Cleveland. However, in this case Ambassador Phillips expressed his views. not to a private citizen, but to his chief in the White House. President Roosevelt had asked him 10 report on India, and Phil. lips carried out instructions. BRITISH OBJECTIONS
 What the British are reported to have objected to in the Phil- lips report was his argument that India was of great concern to as on account 0f the Japanese war. Ite told FDR that We could not accept the British point Of view that conditions 70 India are none Of Our business"
 sIt Is n0t right fOF llle Sri. tiSb te sey tills is ROne ef yewV business wheD we Ri0sae pTeS snmabiy Wiil haze the neateT
 psTt ge piay in itle struggle stIb SapaD,s Phillips said,
 lie also used ylasg, kaTd-b0lled language regarding the GatluEe 0t lJle gndiaD Army to light,
 ythe pFesent gblalsR Army he told FDk, lis purely HleFeeHaFy,
 NenegaI kIllwell hss expressed
 his eepeeTp oyer Ibe situation Rtld iB psTtieBlaF eVRT Ihe pa0T
 Ba0Haae Of tIlR Indian effteeFS, Ihe attitude 0f tbe general pHbs
 ye IessEd 'bs wsE Is sveD
 Ige concluded, sIt is lime g0v
 tbe British te get, Thls they ean de bv g seiemn daflaFas
 ton fFem ghe kingsEmpeT9T tbet Inaie Wiu achieve heT lDS
 dependence Rl z specific asle sffeT fhe BRT,"
 PROTEST 70 FIFE
 STATE DERARTMENT
 Following Washington MeFTys 00SisouDd publication 0f the Phillips leiteF, Foreign Minister Anthony Eden cabled 6IT Ronald Campbell, British charge d'atfalres in Washington, stating that be and British embassy to approach the State Department wiib 6 f0Fs mal demand g0Y aD investigation, siT R0nsld tfsD called 0p BeeTes teFy Huil and informed hlm that the British Government viewed the matter seriously aaa wanted q full eplanati0n,
 Secretary Hull informed EiF Ronald that the Phillips letter mad undoubtedly leaked out through former UnderseeFetaTy RalmDe Wellas-W which the British, Of course, knew gas not the ease.
 Secretary Hull then sent 0n his vacation, and Eden eabled the