impossible to get out of Russia now; and you know that those figures, for the average immigrant, are absolutely prohibitive. Increasing quotas for new passports won't relieve these poor people.

Those people are better off than they were in that horrible Russia, even now; but they had parted with their property on the faith of this Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in the case of the Russians, the visa was on the passport of a neighboring country.

Mr. KOHLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee has that matter pretty well in hand, now, and we are glad to have had that testimony which you have given, which is right to the point.

Do you want to speak to another bill?

Mr. KOHLER. I might call attention to the fact, also, that the people who left their countries, and who were advised to leave their homes, under the act of 1921, did so under the very general impression that that act was much more humane than ultimately, after it had been amended in various ways, it was construed by the courts as being.

The chairman of this committee himself is on record as saying, in debate in Congress, when the act of 1921 was under consideration, that the visa was the thing that would count, and people were not to be deported because they came over here and then found that the quotas of admission were exhausted then. I would like to refer particularly to what the chairman of this committee said, which is to be found under date of April 20, 1921, in volume 61 of the Congressional Record, page 500.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

(The quotation referred to from the Congressional Record is as follows:)

Mr. SINNOTT. In case more than 3 per cent applied to come to our country from some foreign country, in case, say 5 per cent apply, who makes the selection of the 3 per cent?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Incoming aliens come with passports. They must have passports from their governments and visas of those passports by our consular agents. Should there be a surplus from any country undertaking to seek passport visas, the consular agent at that particular place would have, on the information here of the number which can be received, to refuse further visas.

Mr. SINNOTT. Would the consular agent calculate on the 3 per cent from the foreign country?

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. No. His power to visa would not go beyond the number that might be permitted to proceed to the States.

Mr. KOHLER. Chairman Colt, of the Senate committee, said the same thing there, and I think that equity and that sense of high responsibility in the two committees of Congress, and especially the chairmen of these committees, should induce them to exercise or at least to try to exercise humanity in connection with relieving some of the distress that exists in connection with the act of 1921. I think the chairman of the committee, in connection with other bills, has recognized this responsibility and this equity.

That is all I want to say on that bill. I would like to take up others, though.

Bill No. 5646 creates nonquota status for the husbands of United States citizens and fathers and mothers of United States citizens

and has just been referred to by the former speaker. Others, no doubt, will devote themselves particularly to that measure. I will not enlarge on it, particularly not the matter of the husbands, which has just been referred to.

The matter of the fathers and the mothers, as well as husbands of United States citizens, is changed in a very important respect by Congressman Dickstein's bill, which has my hearty approval, inasmuch as he provides that those people should be taken out of the quota, instead of having a preferential status under the quota, and it is most important; because, frankly, my sympathies, as I will presently show more clearly, run particularly to the cases of the wives and minor children of residents of the United States not yet citizens, who, in the case of countries with small quotas, are unable to join their husbands and fathers here for years to come.

The courts have dealt with that question repeatedly, also.

At one time, under the Chinese exclusion laws, I had charge of Chinese exclusion cases for the Government, years ago, and I followed that up.

In the case of the United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim (176 U. S. 459), the court held that though there was no specific provision of the statute at all, the wives and children of resident Chinese merchants legally here, as well as other privileged classes, might enter, and they approved particularly the language of the courts along the Pacific Coast in the case of Chung Toy Ho (42 Federal Reporter, 398), where the court had said:

A Chinese merchant who is entitled to come and dwell in the United States is thereby entitled to bring with him, and have with him, his wife and children. The company of the one and the care and custody of the other are his by natural right, and he ought not to be deprived of either, unless the intention of Congress to do so is clear and unmistakable.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a late decision?

Mr. KOHLER. No; it is an early one; but it is law to-day. The CHAIRMAN. There have been some late decisions. Mr. KOHLER. Congress has a right to overrule principles of humanity and equity, if it chooses; I do not dispute the legal proposition, but it surely ought not do so. The later cases do not alter that. In fact, Chung Sum Shee v. Nagle (268 U. S. 336) so rules under the quota act of 1924. That is the law, so far as the Chinese exclusion laws are concerned. We are discriminating against the non-Chinese, in this, compared with the Chinese exclusion law.

I have been asked to mention a late case, and I would like to make a citation from the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska, in 262 U. S., at page 399, which involved the use of foreign languages in the schools-instruction in them-in which the United States Supreme Court said:

One of the privileges long recognized in the common law as essential to the pursuit of happiness by every man is the right to establish a home and bring up children.

And I say it is inhuman, and it causes all sorts of misery, both here and abroad, to have this separation of families going on, and anything within reasonable limits that Congress can do to cure that inhumanity ought to be done.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you refer to? What form of inhumanity?

Mr. KOHLER. The separation of families by keeping the wives and minor children of men who are here in the United States, abroad for years and years to come, in connection with the countries which have small quotas, and from which the so-called new immigrants involved have come here in large numbers for years before the act of 1924 was passed.

I am very glad to be able to invoke the authority of the Commissioner General of Immigration in connection with this bill, because in his last annual report, on page 30, he recommends the nonquota status for parents over 60 of United States citizens, and unqualifiedly, on page 30, recommends the nonquota status for the husbands of American citizens.

The

Taking up another bill H. R. 5647, which is the bill giving leave to deported aliens to reapply for admission, with the leave of the Secretary; as to that bill I have told Congressman Dickstein that I think there may be some technical error in draftsmanship. penal provision, referring to required consent of the Secretary of Labor to reapply, is absent from the first clause of his bill, the debarring provision; with that qualification, namely, that readmission should be granted where the people first, before they apply for admission at our ports, have secured the leave of the Secretary to reenter. I heartily approve of that bill, thus qualified. We know that people may be deported without any fault of their own, at all, simply because they may have entered at a wrong place. For instance, if a train breaks down, or a boat is in distress, and the passengers are landed at a wrong place, which is not one of the established ports or places of entry, they are here illegally, and may be deported, and it is absurd that those people should be forever and aye debarred, unless at some time before 1929, under the present law, they shall have received the permission of the Secretary of Labor. Similar as to other technical violations of law, which may have given grounds for deportation.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have your amendment on that and will give it to the committee.

Mr. KOHLER. I do not want to elaborate in regard to technical things, but I do feel bound to say that I approve of that, so qualified.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have the reasons here and your amendment. Mr. KOHLER. The bill, H. R. 5647, should be amended by striking out in line 10, after the word "expiration," the words "of one year, and inserting, "without the consent of the Secretary of Labor obtained before he arrives at any port or border of the United States." Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is your amendment.

Mr. KOHLER. That is my proposed amendment.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. To H. R. 5647?

Mr. KOHLER. And it is exactly in line with the Commissioner General of Immigration recommendation, found on page 30 of his last annual report.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be inserted.

[H. R. 5647, Seventy-first Congress, second session]

A BILL To amend the act of March 4, 1924, making it a felony for certain ailens to enter the United States of America

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subdivision (a) of the act approved March 4, 1929, entitled "An act making it a felony with penalty for certain aliens to enter the United States of America under certain conditions in violaton of law," be amended to read as follows:

"(a) If any alien has been arrested and deported in pursuance of law, he shall not be eligible to again seek admission to the United States without the consent of the Secretary of Labor, obtained before he arrives at any port or border of the United States.

SEC. 2. Subdivisions (d) and (e) of section 1 of said act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.

Mr. KOHLER. I understand that the family quota bill is not under consideration to-day, and I will not say anything about it, then.

[H. R. 6852, Seventy-first Congress, second session]

A BILL To amend an act to supplement the naturalization laws, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1929

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subdivision (a) of section (1) of the act entitled "An act to supplement the naturalization laws and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1929, be amended so as to read as follows:

"That (a) the registry of aliens at ports of entry required by section 1 of the act of June 29, 1906 (Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, part 1, page 596), as amended, may be made as to any alien not ineligible to citizenship in whose case there is no record of admission for permanent residence, if such alien shall make a satisfactory showing to the Commissioner General of Immigration, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, that he—

"(1) Entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924 ;

"(2) Has resided in the United States continuously since such entry;

66

"(3) Is a person of good moral character; and

"(4) Is not subject to deportation."

SEC. 2. This act is to take effect immediately.

With regard to H. R. 6852, the registry of aliens amendment, changing the date to 1924, instead of under the present, 1921, I want to call attention to the fact that the Commissioner General of Immigration recommends the change, on pages 30 and 31 of his report.

The bill in that form passed one of the Houses, but was defeated in the hurry of conference committee proceedings, at the very end of the session; and there, also, an important fact probably has been overlooked, creating a strong equity outside of the general argument that it is unwise and unwholesome to keep a lot of people here who can not be deported, and who under the law can not become citizens of the United States. Congressman Johnson's memory will bear me out in regard to this. Under the closing proceedings under the act of 1921, in order to beat one another, some of the steamship lines sent passengers over here and made entries at unauthorized places, and in order to get here all the quicker and beat the other people coming in regular course, who otherwise would then have had their places as admitted within the quota. Those people are practically subject to deportation, because they were admitted since the act of 1921 at places which were not regular places of entry.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us clear the atmosphere a little on that. A great many who came after June 3, 1921, and before July 1, 1924, knew that they were coming in in violation of the temporary quota law, and very often, where they gave themselves up, they were deported; and that has led to a desire on the part of the House of Representatives, at least, to not put them in the class here before the beginning of the counting system, before any quota system, at least until we catch up with those who were here prior to June 3, 1921. It was supposed to be a great number. We now find that the process is slow, and the numbers are not taking advantage of that so-called nunc pro tune in anything like the great numbers that we thought would happen.

Until the machinery can be provided to take care of those who were here a long time ago, might it not be better to let those who came in after June 3, 1921, wait a while? They are here; the 5-year limitation has run; they can not be deported, except for certain very serious crimes. Even if you passed an act now letting them in up to July, 1924, the machinery is not available, and will not be available for quite a time, to take care of them.

Mr. KOHLER. I think that creates a bad atmosphere in the country, to have people here who can not become citizens, and who can not be deported; and in addition to that, to make them realize that they have a Damocles sword hanging over their heads all the time will affect their conduct in all other matters. I think there have been many who came over here in perfect good faith under the act of 1921. As a lawyer, and one who was counsel in the Gottlieb case (265 U. S. 310), in which the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had decided

The CHAIRMAN. If you start on the Gottlieb case, we will be here all day.

Mr. KOHLER. I do not want to go into it any further than to say that even lawyers and judges were in doubt as to who could and couldn't enter under the act of 1921, and the aliens from abroad could not know. And so far as that raises the question as to the people who came in under the act of 1921, even excess of quota numbers, Congress has aided them several times under special legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. You see, that is what we get. We, as an act of grace, took care of all those cases. At one time we had the passport holders in that, but we thought it was putting more in one bill than we could pass. Anything that is done as an act of grace becomes a precedent.

Mr. KOHLER. But they can not become citizens, and they are here and can not be deported, and they ought to be made to feel that they are a part of our people, and ought to be

The CHAIRMAN. They ought to recognize the fact that they beat their way into the United States.

In

Mr. KOHLER. The question whether they beat their way in, is one that ought to be considered on the basis of the Gottlieb case. many cases I want to say that they did not consciously beat their way, but that they acted under the decisions of the courts, which finally the Supreme Court reversed.

97326-30-NO 7-2