« ÎnapoiContinuați »
our shores 300 years ago and carved out of the wilderness the greatest Nation which the world has ever known.
Should an alien be permitted to accept naturalization with the proviso that he would not be required to bear arms in the hour of his country's need, such a naturalized citizen would then occupy a status of privilege beyond that held by native-born citizens—for native-born citizens must heed their country's call to arms when the Congress determines that the free rights of American citizens have been violated.
Under such circumstances the patriotic native-born American citizens would, as usual, gladly bear arms in defense of his country's freedom-while the naturalized citizen, he who brings a foreign philosophy to our free shores, would be allowed to take his ease at home, to fatten upon war profits while the native-born son of America suffers the hardships of camp and trench, fighting back the invaders.
This question was brought up some years ago upon the refusal of the Supreme Court of the United States to grant citizenship to Rosika Schwimmer.
It was brought to a head last May when the Supreme Court denied citizenship to Prof. Douglas C. MacIntosh and Marie Averil Bland who were seeking to become citizens without taking an unqualified oath to bear arms if called upon to do so.
The word “finis" was written in this connection when the Supreme Court on October 12, 1931, declined to review its decision in the MacIntosh and Bland cases and upheld its decision denying them citizenship.
I would call to the attention of the committee that hundreds of thousands of aliens would come to our shores each year if our immigation laws and the interpretation placed upon them by our consuls abroad had not now reduced immigation to a negligible number.
We are now selecting our immigrants with greater care than ever before in the history of this Nation. Under these circumstances, would it not be folly to allow the great privilege of American citizenship to be bestowed upon persons with so little love for this Nation and its institutions that they would seek exemption from the ranks of its defenders in time of grave national peril? I am confident that this patriotic committee of the Congress will
“no” to this unpatriotic request. And I unhesitatingly assert that in declining to report this un-American measure that the committee will merit and receive the approval of the patriotic citizens of this country.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Congress, the American Legion respectfully requests that you decline to report the Griffin bill.
I do not feel that I should conclude my testimony without a word of comment upon some of the theories advanced to the committee yesterday by Professor Davis, of Yale.
One who listened to him would assume that the United States has been in the past engaged almost exclusively in unjust wars, and that in any wars in which we may participate in the future, that the United States is likely to be on the wrong side, and our enemies on the right side—from the viewpoint of justice, morality, and conscience.
I will submit to this committee that a review of our major wars of the past shows conclusively that such a preposterous assumption is unwarranted, although such a review undoubtedly discloses that there existed a division of opinion among our citizens as to the advisability of our participation in all the major wars in which this Nation has been engaged.
I will cite for the record our four major wars.
The Revolutionary War. While a majority of the Colonists favored the battle for independence, there is no gainsaying the fact that there were also many Colonists who opposed the war, whose sympathies were with Great Britain and some of these harbored this feeling so deeply that they turned against their fellow colonists and became what was known as Tories, casting in their fortunes with Great Britain in the war.
The War of 1812. A division of opinion as to the advisability of this war existed so strong that some of the statesmen in New England suggested that the New England States secede from the Union because of the injury to their trade which the war brought about. If the theories of Professor Davis were to prevail, this war for the freedom of Americans to sail the seven seas in safety might well have been lost. The Civil
War. I do not need to comment upon what effect the theories of Professor Davis might have had upon such a war as this, where the Nation was divided against itself.
The World War. Although the great majority of Americans stood stolidly behind this war for freedom, many in the Nation believed the war unjust-if possible, would have had America enter it on the side of the central powers rather than on the side which was chosen,
One side of this division must necessarily have been right, and the other side wrong. Should Professor Davis's theories prevail, only those in sympathy with the war would have been required to maintain the rights of America—the others would be allowed to escape military service.
Forty-five years was the maximum age during the World War at which a citizen, or an alien for that matter, could be called to the colors. This was not only because of the Constitutional provisions, but because a man above that age has not the physical stamina requisite to active participation in the hardships imposed by modern warfare. Professor Davis has emphasized the high moral and intelligent qualities of Professor MacIntosh, of Yale.
I would point out to you, therefore, the insidious character of such an argument. Because he has passed the age of 45 years, should America become involved in a major war, Professor MacIntosh could not be called to the colors. This fact is well understood by Professor MacIntosh, Professor Davis, and those others who are advocating the principle for which he stands.
It will be seen, therefore, that this fight on the part of Professor MacIntosh and those who are supporting his contentions, is not in its essence a fight to prevent Professor MacIntosh from any possible violation of the dictates of his conscience, but has been in fact a fight for a principle involving the ideas of other foreigners who may seek to become American citizens--that principle being that such foreigners be allowed to obtain the benefits of our civilization and the protection of our strength without doing their part to protect nativeborn Americans in the event of a clash with a foreign power.
The American Legion is opposed to this principle which these foreigners would impose upon us as a national policy, and we ask this committee not only to disapprove the Griffin bill, but to approve the Dies resolution, H. J. Res. 255, now pending before this committee, which prohibits the naturalization of aliens under the circumstances advocated by Professor Davis.
I thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Colonel.
Mr. LLOYD. I will call Mrs. L. F. Hobard, President General, Daughters of the American Revolution.
STATEMENT OF MRS. LOWELL F. HOBART, PRESIDENT GENERAL,
DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Mrs. HOBART. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I am Mrs. Lowell Fletcher Hobart, President General of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution.
In speaking against this bill, I am safe in saying that I voice the sentiment of the delegated body of Continental Congress of the past half-dozen years regarding restricted immigration and the oath of allegiance.
I found in going through the Northwestern and Northern States also the Western States, during the past summer and fall that the one question asked everywhere was
be alert in case any bill is brought before Congress allowing conscientious objectors or those refusing to bear arms in the defense of our country to become naturalized citizens?
Evidently, the supporters of such a sentiment have been spreading their propaganda over the entire country, as it was the consensus of opinion that this bill would be brought before Congress at this session.
We are utterly opposed to give the privileges of citizenship to anyone not willing to defend it when necessary.
can see no reason, in case of invasion by a foreign foe, why part of our citizens should respond to the call to arms, risking their lives in defense of their country, while others, who are also citizens of this country, are hiding in safety. Why should the men of our families, who are loyal Americans regardless of their feelings in leaving young wives, children and mothers, go into every branch of service, either on our ships, or on foreign lands, to defend an ever-growing peace army, the members of which army are hiding under safety zones of so-called patriotic service. Why should I give up my only son because the supporters of this bill are using the plea that their conscience and their allegiance to God refuses to allow them to fight? The halo spoken of yesterday seems to me nothing but a smoke screen for so-called conscientious objectors.
Furthermore we let these conscientious objectors come here and enjoy all the advantages of our land; they can become rich and influential; their children are educated at our public expense; they can take an active part in the Government, even to holding office
themselves, or to elect voters to office, a privilege which is given to those who would defend their country.
We can not deport them, if they are citizens, but if aliens, we can. Religion should have nothing to do with the oath of allegiance, When it comes to God and country—those duties are parallel. God gave us our country, and He expects us to defend and protect it. There should only be one class of citizenship—those willing to protect their country under all circumstances. While the old and crippled men may not be physically fit to bear arms, nor do we expect the women and children to do so, but they are honest in their desire to serve, and a way will be found, if this time should come, to make use of their services.
I do not believe that anyone can speak for the entire membership of an organization or of a church. I do not pretend to speak for my entire membership, but I am speaking for the State and chapter officers, and the delegates elected by their membership to speak for them in continental Congress, thus representing almost 100 per cent of our membership.
Some of the societies represented yesterday are spending huge sums of money for billboards over the country to advertise the posters you saw yesterday. Unfortunate, there will be no one to stand by the side of each billboard to explain to the unsuspecting public that these figures which they show mean nothing,
General Pershing said, not long ago, “ The good women are asking us to give up our ships and our arms, but we have so little to give up.
While America has never desired war, how do we know that some other country, who does desire war, will not declare war upon us? And I say to you, never again must we allow the young manhood of America to go into war so totally unprepared as they did in 1917.
It is often said that when the emergency arises America will answer the call-but why wait and sacrifice millions of lives because our boys and young men have had no military training? I do not believe, as I have heard stated, that if we were totally disarmed the rest of the world would be ashamed to come over and fight us.
Are we sure, if we passed the Griffin bill or a similar bill, that we will not admit thousands of aliens, whose conscience will not allow them to promise to bear arms for the safety of America—but will not many of them be willing to bear arms against the United States in this communist movement?
And, gentlemen, my plea and the plea of the national society, Daughters of the American Revolution, is for the future safety of this country and its worthwhile citizenship.
The CHAIRMAN. I have a letter here, Mrs. Hobart, that I am sure you would be interested in reading and answering. I do not desire to put anything in this record of this nature without allowing an opportunity for it to be read and answered.
Mrs. HOBART. Shall I answer it to you?
The CHAIRMAN. This is from some lady who claims to be a granddaughter of a Daughter of the American Revolution, and I thought, in fairness to you and your organization, that you should read that and be given an opportunity to explain it, because I do not care to put anything in the record without giving everybody an opportunity to see it.
Mrs. HOBART. We probably have a few disgruntled members over the country.
The CHAIRMAN. I will not put anything into this record unless everybody has an opportunity to answer it.
Mr. JENKINS. I would like to state that I have, and would like to put in the record at the proper time, about 350' letters and telegrams that I have received, some of them from members of the distinguished organization this lady represents.
The CHAIRMAN. She represents the organization and I assume she speaks for all of them.
Mr. JOHNSON. You are aware, Mrs. Hobart, that some of the members of these organizations, who are favoring the Griffin bill, have been appearing within the last week before the sub-Committee on Appropriations for the Military Establishment, and objecting to appropriations of money for the carrying on of officers' training camps, citizens' training camps, and any and all military activities. The representatives of the so-called pacifist organizations are working everywhere trying to beat down any defense. .
The CHAIRMAN. The position that the Chair takes, as I said before, is that I do not care to put anything in the record unless an opportunity be given to any lady here to make such explanations as she
may care to. Mr. Johnson. The Chairman is quite right, and everybody admits there are minority views in every organization or group.
Mrs. HOBART. I am happy to say that the minority is very small in our case.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement.
Mr. GRIFFIN. May I be permitted to interpose a remark at this moment? It seems that all of the argument thus far in opposition to the bill seems to be predicated upon the theory that if the bill, which I introduced, became a law, that applicants for citizenship would thereby ipso facto be relieved from service in the Army. I want to emphasize the fact that there is nothing in the bill, either in substance or
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Do you not think, Mr. Griffin, in fairness to those people who are making the opposition, it would be better to permit them to proceed without interruption, and then both sides wiĩl be given an opportunity to sum it up?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am in complete harmony with you, Mr. Chairman, on that point, but I wanted to emphasize the point that the bill itself would not, if it became a law, take from Congress the right which it has to
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I think, Mr. Griffin, the opponents should be entitled to the same opportunity as your side was given yesterday. I tried to have no interruptions when you were presenting your side.
Mr. DIEs. The Chairman is right.
Mr. Johnson. Certainly; but the proponent of the bill persists in interjecting a statement, and we want to take time to show his premises are wrong:
The CHAIRMAN. When both sides are through, both sides will be given a chance, if they desire, to add anything to their statements, and they will be given that opportunity, and that will be the proper time.