Mr. DICKSTEIN. And, I take it, you have thoroughly discussed the thing with them?

Mr. STEELE. Only with our immigration chairman, Judge Van Orsdell.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. You do not know whether all of these organizations that are represented here have had these bills under consideration and passed resolutions in their respective conventions regarding them? What is your answer?

Mr. STEELE. I do not think they have had all of these particular bills before them, Mr. Dickstein, but they have had these or similar bills.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I am talking about these particular bills. Do you want to tell this committee that all of these organizations have discussed these bills introduced by me this year, and have adopted and filed with this committee resolutions opposing all of them? Do you wish to infer that such is the situation, or are you simply stating their general immigration policy as being opposed to them?

Mr. STEELE. No; I will say that the representatives of every one of these organizations have met and discussed these bills.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Mr. Steele, I want to be fair to you, and at the same time I would like to get some real, first-hand knowledge. Do you understand all of these bills?

Mr. STEELE. As I said, very frankly, I did not look over them except in a casual way.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Thank you. Do you realize that one of those bills provides that a citizen of the United States shall have the right to bring in a mother or a father over the age of 60? In other words, it is the recommendation of the Department of Labor that 60 years for a parent is proper. Do you and the patriotic societies and what not that you represent, think the mother and the father should not be brought in outside of any quota? Is that the sentiment of the "humane" societies whose organ you are?

Mr. STEELE. Well, I think that is the sentiment, as is expressed by these committees, and that really the question now

Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Let me, if you will, give you this illustration-if a citizen of the United States, a war veteran, has a mother in, say, Syria, and has made application for admission of his mother under quota-he is in the United States legally-do you realize that it would take 110 years to effect the entry of that mother? Do you call opposition to this legislation that would allow that mother to come to her son as nonquota humane?

Mr. STEELE. I do not think that that is inhumane. I think that it is just simply one of the forces of life.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. You do not think that that is inhumane?

Mr. STEELE. No.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you want the record to show that each of these organizations would favor a procedure by which a veteran could not get his mother here for 110 years under the quota? Mr. STEELE. Well, I have no authority

Mr. DICKSTEIN (interposing). Well, you are speaking for your patriotic societies? You are the mouthpiece, as I understand, for many uplift societies.

Mr. STEELE, I have no authority to record each of those.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is what I want to learn. And that procedure would apply to a father of an American citizen also.

Mr. STEELE. Well, personally, I would feel that way; yes.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I see. I just want to get your views on record. I assume that you are speaking for these organizations.

Mr. STEELE. Well, I am speaking for my particular society, the Sons of the American Revolution, and the legislative committee. The CHAIRMAN. Let us get the record straight. How many of these fathers and mothers are there?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not care, Mr. Chairman, if there is only 1 or if there are 10. It is the principle in which I am interested.

The gentleman, Mr. Steele, says that he represents these organizations, and that they are opposed to these bills.

I do not think it matters, if he says that he is speaking for this or for that, but he is opposed to something, in my opinion, that these organizations do not know what it is all about, except a handful of men who come here and present arguments to the committee.

I do not care what happens to these bills; but I do want the public to know who these patriotic organizations are, what they are, and so forth. It may be if they are such good organizations and formed for such altruistic, high-minded purposes, I would be glad to join them.

Mr. STEELE. We would be very glad to have you.

The CHAIRMAN. It might be difficult for you to make the grade on this one.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I might join the Knights of Columbus, next week. The CHAIRMAN. Let us get on to the next point.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Before you do, I want to ask some more questions. Mr. STEELE. I would like to have an opportunity to explain.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Yes; I will give you every opportunity to explain. Mr. STEELE. I say to you, that our representatives have regular conference meetings and they represent-we are in a representative country-we represent these people, and they have agreed on that policy as representatives of those organizations.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not want to at this time; I do not care to get into any extraneous discussion with you.

Mr. STEELE. I can not speak for each one personally, but I know what I have been told by them.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have four or five World War veterans in my district-with legs and arms off-who have mothers and fathers scattered throughout the world, and they have not been able to see them now for 12 years. Do you think that it is fair to deprive them of the privilege of bringing in their mothers and fathers, because under this present quota law they can not be reached?

Mr. STEELE. I think that that is one of the unfortunate situations of life, Mr. Congressman. We all have those feelings. I have it, and you have it. Yes; we all have those feelings.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Let me ask you this question: Under the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States the woman citizen is given equal rights of franchise, is she not?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Now, a woman citizen who marries a foreign husband, under the present law, is not permitted to bring him here

that is, there are certain countries from which she is not permittea to do that. She can not do so unless she picked him from Great Britain. She can not bring him into this country before the expiration of 4, 6, 8, 10, or 15 years. Do you think that we ought to treat our American women under a different category and give them different consideration than we give our male citizens?

Mr. STEELE. I do not quite get your question.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. A male citizen who marries a foreign woman can bring her in immediately.

Mr. STEELE. Yes; I understand.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. A woman citizen of the United States does not have the same privilege. Do you think you would be opposed to that? Do you want to give the man the right to bring in his wife and yet deprive the woman citizen of the right of bringing in her husband?

in

Mr. STEELE. I think they come under two different categories.

Mr. GREEN. Well, we find that as a result of our customs and laws many of our States, and in some ways in our national laws, that is the law. In estate matters, as to custody of the children, custody of the home, the wife and the husband do not then stand on a parity at law.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But they stand on the same footing under the nineteenth amendment, do they not?

Mr. GREEN. That is all very true.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. And the children's rights are involved there, too, you understand.

Mr. GREEN. Yes; but if you interpret the laws of the various States, you will come to a realization of that.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I am not interpreting the laws of the various States. I am interpreting the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

If the gentleman will only acquaint himself with that he will understand my thought.

Mr. GREEN. That does not go so far as to abrogate all existing State laws with respect to property and domicile.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Under the nineteenth amendment the woman has the same equality as a male citizen, as I understand that amendment. Now, Mr. Steele, under the present law a man citizen can marry a foreign woman and bring her in here; but a woman citizen here, native or naturalized, who marries a foreign husband is entitled only to a preference since the 31st day of, I believe, is it not, 1928? Mr. STEELE. Yes.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Does your organization oppose that provision of the law?

Mr. STEELE. I did not say that they opposed that very strongly. I think, on general principles, that the things in the present law are all right. I do not have any way to help that out. I would be perfectly willing for them to do that.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I want to be fair with you.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Now, this is not meant as any personal reflection. Mr. STEELE. You are trying to get in your side, and we are trying to put in our side.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I want to learn something. Let us assume, for the sake of argument-I do not mean to be personal as to you-if you had a daughter who really fell in love with a man of and in a foreign country, and she married him, and came right back, and could not bring her husband in for 4 or 5 or 10 years-do you think that that would be equitable or a just condition to impose upon her and her husband?

Mr. STEELE. Is that not taken care of now?

The CHAIRMAN. Under the preferential provision.

Mr. STEELE. Yes; under the preferential provision.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Out of a total of 150,000 immigrants, Great Britain is getting about 75,000.

Mr. STEELE. As I understand the matter which you are discussing, as I understand those things are being taken care of, or will be taken care of within a few years, all of those that have not been taken care of, and it is not necessary to have these bills that will change the law. when these persons will be taken care of within a few years.

If that is what you are getting at, that is the situation already. Mr. DICKSTEIN. Now, in addition to that we have covered here in these three bills, we cover the situation of the father and the mother, in addition to my illustration to you about that condition. You do not think that that is necessary?

Mr. STEELE, No.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. You do not think that it is necessary for an American citizen?

Mr. STEELE (interposing). Pardon me, but I am expressing my personal opinion.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I do not want your personal opinion. I want the opinion of your organization and the other organizations for which you speak.

I want to ask whether these patriotic societies have adopted resolutions to that effect.

Mr. STEELE. I would suggest, Mr. Dickstein, if I may, that I just simply spoke first, and was to speak for a moment. Mr. Kinnicutt, who is very much more thoroughly conversant with these things than I am, can probably tell you.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Excuse me. I am sorry. I have finished.

Mr. STEELE. If you want me to tell you that we are opposed to them, I will say we are.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I have no further questions.

Mr. GREEN. I would like to know, whether in your opinion, as a representative of these organizations it is the policy of those organizations to stand for the cause of the individuals or the group of American citizens; in other words, is the individual put first or the group.

Mr. STEELE. The group.

Mr. GREEN. The group.

Mr. STEELE. The group; yes, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Of American citizens?

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREEN. And American institutions.

Mr. STEELE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREEN. Then, do your organizations stand for, and do you believe that it is the policy of your organized group to stand for the group, rather than in the case of a very few of the individuals. Mr. STEELE. Will you just state that again, Mr. Congressman. Mr. GREEN. Do these organizations, do they stand for disturbing or disrupting the fundamental principles of those organizations. Mr. STEELE. Certainly not.

Mr. GREEN. In order to suit the case of one or two individuals. Mr. STEELE. Certainly not.

Mr. GREEN. One more question. I feel like if a woman chooses an alien in preference to one of her own country, that she should go and live with him, where he resides, and I believe that that is according to the marriage vows.

Mr. STEELE. I think so. I agree with you absolutely on that. That is my view personally, and I think that that is the view of our organization.

Mr. GREEN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Steele.
Mr. STEELE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. STEELE. I think Mr. Kinnicutt is the next witness, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, we will hear Mr. Kinnicutt.

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS H. KINNICUTT, REPRESENTING THE ALLIED PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES (INC.), 250 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will just give your name, business and address to the reporter.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Francis H. Kinnicutt, 250 Park Avenue, New York City, and, I represent here the Allied Patriotic Societies (Inc.) I am president of that organization.

The CHAIRMAN. You appear in behalf of the resolutions presented a few minutes ago.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Mr. Chairman, the organization that I represent has passed resolutions practically every year for five years on excluding, in opposition to adding to the quota. They have not yet had time to pass a specific resolution on every one of these bills, but I can assure you that the resolutions that they have passed in the last five or six years in principle, would cover their opposition to these specific bills.

And, therefore, I feel that I am entirely within my rights, and also have certain leaway to act in an emergency, as chairman of their committee on immigration, to speak what I believe is their views on every one of these bills.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Are you through? Do you want to say anything else?

Mr. KINNICUTT. Oh, yes.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. You want to make a general statement.

Mr. KINNICUTT. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask a question. Then, the general purpose of your organization, which is the Allied Patriotic SocietiesMr. KINNICUTT (interposing). Yes, sir.