TO RECONCILE NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE WITH

THE BILL OF RIGHTS*

TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1932

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Washington, D. C.

The committee this this day met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

The Chairman will call up H. R. 297 and H. R. 298, being the same bills except for a little change in H. R. 297, both bills having been introduced by Congressman Griffin, to provide that religious views or philosophical opinions against war shall not debar aliens, otherwise qualified, from becoming citizens. This hearing will be confined to consideration of H. R. 297.

[H. R. 297, Seventy-second Congress, first session]

A BILL To provide that religious views or philosophical opinions against war shall not debar aliens, otherwise qualified, from citizenship

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the fourth subdivision of section 4 of the act entitled "An act to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States, and establishing the Bureau of Naturalization," approved June 29, 1906, as amended March 2, 1929 (Public, Numbered 962, Seventieth Congress, section 6 (b)), is amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph thereof the following new sentence: "Except that no person mentally, morally, and otherwise qualified shall be debarred from citizenship by reason of his or her religious views or philosophical opinions with respect to the lawfulness of war as a means of settling international disputes, but every alien admitted to citizenship shall be subject to the same obligations as the native-born citizen."

[H. R. 298, Seventy-second Congress, first session]

A BILL To provide that religious views or philosophical opinions against war shall not debar aliens, otherwise qualified, from citizenship

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the fourth subdivision of section 4 of the act entitled "An act to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States, and establishing the Bureau of Naturalization," approved June 29, 1906, as amended (March 2, 1929, Public, Numbered 962, Seventieth Congress, section 6 (b)), is amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph thereof the following new sentence: Except that no person mentally, morally, and otherwise qualified shall be debarred from citizenship by reason of his or her religious views or philosophical opinions with respect to the lawfulness of war as a means of settling international disputes."

NOTE: See discussion on title p. 149.

66

1

Now, I should like to make the following announcement. There are a number of witnesses present who would like to be heard. Very naturally, we would like to hear everybody we can and I wish that the witnesses would bear in mind that fact and try not to take up too much time. I will ask the witnesses to come right down to the point in question in this bill. In that way everybody who wants to speak for or against this bill will have an opportunity to be heard. The committee will sit here to listen to the testimony if we can in some way formulate a program by which you will cut your time down.

Congressman Griffin, would you like to be heard first?

Mr. FREE. I presume, in hearing these witnesses, you will hear those in favor of the bill first, and those opposed later.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FREE. Now, then, I see there are a great number of people here. I do not know who is going to testify or on what side, but last year we gave each side a certain number of hours, and I am wondering if that is what the chairman proposes to do this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman believes that we should give these witnesses on both sides an opportunity. We could come back to-day or to-morrow, and I am willing to come back here to-morrow, for the purpose of disposing of this hearing.

Mr. FREE. Could we agree that we will hear one side to-day, and the other side to-morrow?

Mr. JOHNSON. Here is the printed record of the hearings which were devoted to H. R. 3547, in the previous Congress. The proposal was then made, as you will see by reading these hearings, that Mr. Griffin and his witnesses be heard. It took so much time, I recall, that in the afternoon session, the chairman decided to alternate sides, and even then that hearing ran until after 6 o'clock in the evening. It has been claimed that the customary time for ending an afternoon hearing is 4.30 p. m. That is not the case. All who were members of this committee in the previous Congress will know that afternoon sessions were run just as late as members of the committee could be prevailed upon to remain.

Now, I beg to suggest that if you allow a free hand to the proponents on occasions of this kind, you will use up as much of the day as can be used.

There is a motion with reference to our agricultural appropriations bill on the floor to-day-it may come any hour which will take the members away, and you will then find yourselves in a congestion as to the witnesses in opposition. I think the proponents of this bill should be permitted to present, say, 10 witnesses briefly, without interruption.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a list of witnesses and there were at least 50 on the list; I cut them down to about 12, and I think we ought to go along the best way we can to-day, and we will hear the other side to-morrow. If there should be a call in the House on any vote, we will suspend immediately."

1

Mr. RUTHERFORD. It is not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to shorten the hearings, except that I do not think we ought to cover matters that have been covered so much heretofore.

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with the gentlemen. In the previous hearing, and some others in the previous Congress, at the beginning per

mission was granted to witnesses to revise and extend their remarks. Now, that was done in the interest of economy of time. A great many came here with prolonged and prepared statements, and were permitted to extend them, and that nearly always leads to certain abuses. It is a question, when a man has a prepared statement, having made part of it, and is then permitted to extend it in the record, how far that extension should go. It resulted in the manuscript of this hearing being taken out and retained for a long time. First, by Representative Griffin, himself, and then others. The chairman, who at that time was myself, had gone to his home in the Pacific Northwest before these manuscripts came back. I think we had better have an understanding as to whether we are to permit extensions of remarks, elaborations, or hold the witnesses to 5, 10, or 15 minutes without interruption on a direct statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I realize the point that you make, and, while sitting in with you, Mr. Johnson, we sat here until 6 o'clock one night, listening to the witnesses in the case. I am very mindful of that fact and, as a result of that knowledge, I have confined Mr. Griffin to the list of witnesses which I have here, and they are the ones who may give you some additional light to-day.

Mr. MOORE. I think they should go along without interruption until they get through.

The CHAIRMAN. They ought to finish their statements, and then we can ask questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you do not have some limitation, we will be here a week on one bill.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be out of here to-morrow and we will give the opposition an opportunity to be heard as well as the proponents. Mr. JENKINS. Why not do this--this is a great question involved here, and everybody is more or less familiar with it. There is a lot of feeling liable to be manifested here, as it was before. Let us agree that one side will have this morning, and the other side to-morrow morning.

Mr. MOORE. I think that suggestion is all right, if we do not run into a conflict on the time, and possibly we may get a call to the House. This is a great big question, one that is highly debatable. I am opposed to this bill, but I would like to see ample opportunity given to the proponents of the bill this morning, and that they be given an opportunity to present their case as they want it, and to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the intention of the Chair. I want a fair hearing, and to give everybody an opportunity, whether for or against the proposition.

Mr. FREE. My idea would be to set a certain number of hours for the proponents, and a certain number of hours for the opponents, and if we have to sit until to-morrow night, let us do that.

Mr. RUTHERFORD, I move that the proponents have to-day, and the opponents have to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. If, by reason of a roll call, some of the time is not used, if we are called away at 2 or 3 o'clock, and are away an hour or so, we ought to give them that additional time.

Mr. MOORE. I propose giving each side four hours.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us go on for the present, and see how we are coming along.

Mr. JOHNSON. We learn by experience, and it develops here from the statements just made, that Chairman Dickstein is following exactly almost in the identical words of his predecessor, in an effort to solve this question.

Mr. FREE. I do not know whether that is a recommendation or not.

Mr. JOHNSON. I find it reported that the former chairman said, "Let us run along as best we can and hear as many as we can." The CHAIRMAN. I have learned that from you.

if

Mr. COOKE. You are allowing too much to chance here. I think fix a certain length of time, you are better off. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Griffin, will you please proceed?

you

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. GRIFFIN, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, having in mind that many of the members of this committee are familiar with the bill, I do not intend to trespass upon your time by an extended recitation of the circumstances which preceded the introduction of the bill, but I would like to put into the hearing a summary of the various cases that have been decided, under the construction of the oath of allegiance administered to applicants for citizenship, since the Schwimmer case was decided in May, 1929. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by that of the last decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States?

Mr. GRIFFIN. A summary of all of the cases. There have been quite a number of applicants denied citizenship upon the basis of the decision in the Schwimmer case.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be so ordered at this point.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The MacIntosh and Bland case, and several others; all bearing on the question.

(The summary of cases referred to by Mr. Griffin is as follows:)

SUMMARY OF APPLICANTS REJECTED FOR CITIZENSHIP

(a) Rosika Schwimmer.-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 152.) (b) Professor Clyde MacIntosh.-Judge Bondy of the United States district court refused the application on the decision in the Schwimmer case. An appeals was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the district which overruled the decision by a unanimous court-Judge Manton writing the decision-deciding that the applicant was entitled to citizenship. See Supreme Court decision, addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 159.)

(c) Marie Averill Bland.-This case was also decided on the decision in the Schwimmer case and was taken to the Supreme Court which decided against the applicant in a five to four decision, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writing the dissenting opinion which was concurred in by Justices Brandies, Holmes, and Stone. See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 169.)

(P. 174.)

(d) Martha Jane Graber.-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (e) Mrs. Margaret Webb.-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 175.) (f) Mrs. Jorgan Boe (nee Mary Mable Harris).-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 183.)

(g) Reverend J. S. King.-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks.

(P. 183.)