Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. GRIFFIN. I wanted to make a correction, that is all.
Mr. JOHNSON. We do not admit it is a correction.

Mr. FREE. The fallacy of that argument of the gentleman from New York is this. He says there is nothing in this bill that prevents the Congress from causing anyone who afterwards gets into citizenship to be forced to go to war, but under the well-known policy of our Government, we have always exempted conscientious objectors, and we will just add a horde of people who come under that category, and if we had enough of them, we would not have enough people to depend upon to defend our country if it came to an extreme.

The CHAIRMAN. Why interrupt them when they are making their record ? Strike it out from the record.

Mr. JOHNSON. You can not strike it out. Leave it there.
The CHAIRMAN. Call your next witness, please.

Mr. LLOYD. I will call Judge J. H. Noyes, of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics.

STATEMENT OF JUDGE J. H. NOYES, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED

AMERICAN MECHANICS

Judge Noyes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Junior Order of the United American Mechanics of the National Council. We have over 400,000 members in nearly every State in the Union. Our organization is opposed to these two bills. Our order believes that citizenship is a great privilege. If any person comes to these shores and wants to become a citizen, he or she should come under the terms as laid down by the United States, and not under terms as made by them.

Mr. JENKINS. Do you represent the Daughters of America also?
Judge Noyes. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENKINS. Are they included in the 400,000 ?

Judge Noyes. No; we have 300,000 in the Daughters of America Auxiliary to the National Council.

Mr. JENKINS. Do they agree with your sentiments ?
Judge Noyes. They do.
Mr. Dies. Has any resolution been passed by either order?

Judge Noyes. There was last year, but not on these two bills. The national boards, who consider these matters with the legislative committee, have taken these matters up, and gone on record.

Mr. DIES. As you indicate here?
Judge Noyes. "Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Call your next witness, please.

Mr. Lloyd. I will call Mrs. Rice Means of the American Legion Auxiliary, National Society.

STATEMENT OF MRS. RICE MEANS, AMERICAN LEGION AUXIL

IARY, NATIONAL SOCIETY

Mrs. Means. I am here, but I did not expect to speak. I just wish to agree with Colonel Taylor. The auxiliary always follows the Legion in all matters of legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. LLOYD. I will call Mr. Herman A. Miller, National Secretary of the Patriotic Order Sons of America.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN A. MILLER, NATIONAL SECRETARY

PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA

Mr. MILLER. Herman A Miller, National Secretary of the Patriotic Order Sons of America, 1157 Butler Street, Easton, Pa. Before making any statement I desire to qualify as speaking for this Patriotic organization, and wish to present this resolution.

(The resolution referred to by Mr. Miller follows:)

KESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL CAMP PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA

Whereas it is not possible to foresee the specific character and nature on legislation to be introduced in Congress during the course of the next two years which may closely affect the interests and basic principles for which the Patriotic Order Sons of America stands, the legislative committee recommends the passage of the following recommendation.

Resolved, That the executive committee is hereby authorized to take any steps which in its judgment may be deemed proper to support or oppose any legislation introduced in Congress prior to the next convention which relates to the basic principles of Americanism for which the Patriotic Order Sons of America stands.

Adopted by the National Camp Patriotic Order Sons of America, in national convention at Atlantic City, N. J., September 23, 1931.

Mr. MILLER. We are, by action of our national camp, affiliated with the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies and I am the representative of our order on the advisory board. I was present at the meeting of the advisory board held last October in this city, and voted in favor of the resolution as presented by Mr. Lloyd. This resolution was presented to the members of our executive committee and approved. I was directed by our national president, Orrin E. Boyle to appear before this honorable committee and voice our opposition to this Griffin bill or any other bill that would place any reservation in the oath of citizenship or make a loophole to weaken the intent of the law requiring aliens to bear arms in defense of any war our country might engage in. The Patriotic Order Sons of America was organized in Philadelphia, Pa., on December 10, 1847, for the purpose of inculcating an active interest of its membership in the welfare of our country and in her defense of foes from without and within. We have demonstrated that men can owe allegiance to God and country and defend this allegiance. Our motto for 84 years has been God, our country, and our order. In 1861, when the call came for 75,000 men to fight for the safety of our Union, the first five companies that responded came from Pennsylvania, and were composed mostly of the members of our order, and later on every camp had surrenderd its charter with one exception, because the membership had enlisted in the war.

In 1898 5,000 of our membership enlisted, and in the World War about 25,000, and may I state that a regiment known as the Pennsylvania Reserves of the Patriotic Order of Sons of America mobilized in the city of Scranton, Pa., and those that were eligible entered the service of these United States. We were the only military organization that mobilized with the exception of the National Guards. We require every member (and they must be American born) to pledge himself that he will defend this country, her Constitution, and her colors with his life if necessary. We, therefore, believe that we are consistent in our opposition to this bill or any other reservation that

would weaken the same and are of the opinion that the question known as No. 24 is fair and strengthens the oath of citizenship. I could never see the justification in the exemption of anyone from military duties in time of war except those who, because of age or some infirmity, could not possibly fulfill such duties. Those who enjoy the privilege of the worship of God must realize that this privilege was secured by the shedding of blood and many of those who fought for this privilege and also believe in God, had no scruples with their conscience about offending their Maker. Joshua's arms were upheld while the Israelites smote their enemies and at the command of Jehovah, Jesus shed his blood because he loved humanity, and I believe it was the will of his Father. So, men shed their blood for the progress of mankind and here was established by war a new Nation where the right to worship God in his own way is accorded every citizen. This may have been the plan of God. Citizens should be willing to preserve this blessing with their life if necessary. You can serve your God with your soul, and your country with your body. Without our country with its heritage, its traditions, and the safeguard it guarantees to its citizens, there perhaps would not be an occasion for the present oath of citizenship. All that we enjoy as citizens is guaranteed because of our Constitution and the right of the Government to use force of arms to protect this privilege. This duty to defend these rights must be accepted by all loyal citizens, for the reason that all citizens enjoy the same constitutional rights. I like the statement made, it is said, by Decatur. “My country, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my country.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We will run along here until 12.30 and then take a recess until 1.30, and I was fortunate in procuring the same room we had yesterday, where you will have a seat and we will all be more comfortable. If, in the meantime, there is a roll call, then we will suspend for the time of the roll call and then come back and continue the hearings until through.

Mr. Rutherford, will you kindly take the chair.
(Mr. Rutherford presiding.)
Mr. RUTHERFORD. You may call your next witness, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. LLOYD. I will call Mrs. S. L. Tucker, of the United States Daughters of 1812.

STATEMENT OF MRS. S. L. TUCKER, UNITED STATES DAUGHTERS

OF 1812

Mrs. TUCKER. My name is Mrs. S. L. Tucker. I was born in Illinois. I was educated at the Visitation Convent in Georgetown, and I am a Methodist. I belong to the D. A. R., the Daughters of 1812, the Dames of the Loyal Legion, former national president Women's Relief Corps, Ladies of the Grand Army, and Daughters of Bethlehem.

In mentioning my religion, I wish to say I belong to the National Church of Methodism, built by the Methods of this country here in Washington, of which Rev. James S. Montgomery, the chaplain of the United States House of Representatives, is the pastor. A more loyal American and Christian citizen does not live than Doctor

111460-32- 8

Montgomery, who does not indorse any law which would exempt any prospective citizen of the United States from defending his country in time of need.

I appear as the designated representative of the United States Daughters of 1812, and also at the request of the national president in opposition to this amendment as not supporting a national defense.

I do not believe in special privileges for any able-bodied citizen or prospective citizen on any ground, religious or otherwise. An honest, desirable person applying for citizenship would not wish such an exception, and if so, I think would be under suspicion as to his future allegiance. We have had too many already in this country who have used the cloak of religion, or unreligion, or philosophical opinion, a phrase susceptible of wide interpretation, who later have proven their unworthiness as citizens; who, by their acts, have caused great expense to this Government. It is a wise precaution of the naturalization board to ask a prospective citizen if he would bear arms in defense of the country in time of war, and so consider it as our opinion—the opinion of the Daughters of 1812—who have indorsed all of the acts for national defense.

Mr. RUTHERFORD (presiding). Thank you.
Mr. LLOYD. Is Mrs Amos Fries here?

STATEMENT OF MRS. AMOS FRIES, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICAN LEGION AUXILIARY

Mrs. FRIES. I am representing the District of Columbia American Legion Auxiliary:

Mr. JENKINS. Are you the wife of General Fries?
Mrs. FRIES. Yes, sir.

The American Legion Auxiliary opposes the principle of this bill on the broad principle that it would give legal status to the alien conscientious objector. This would prevent a universal draft law for which the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary are working. The law would make a contract with the pacifists in advance that they would not have to give service in war. This would make them a privileged class, which our native born would have to defend. Congress has passed laws during wars to exempt people whose religion forbade them to engage in war. But that is distinctly within the province of Congress. If Congress took that right away from itself in this case, it could only say, in place of a universal draft, all must be called to give duty in national defense except those naturalized aliens who were admitted with religious or philosophical views to the contrary.

We have no hard opinions against the Quakers or the Mennonites. They are industrious, hard working, and accumulated wealth which our fathers, husbands, and sons had to fight to protect during the World War. Why add to this burden by bringing more into the country who will not help in the defense!

Then this bill proposes to let those who hold philosophical opinions as to the lawfulness of war be added to that privileged class that our good men will have to fight and die for. I don't know know how many could be added under that class. I don't know what it might mean.

[ocr errors]

There would be no question as to the lawfulness of war if our Representatives in the lawmaking body of the Government declare war. That's law.

What these philosophical opinions may be makes little difference. I suspect it might be a cloak to cover a good many things, all harmful to our Government, and for that reason we ask that those holding them be excluded unless their holders are willing to bear arms.

Much has been said by the proponents of this bill about the Constitution, guaranteeing religious liberty. That surely means that they are all equal before the law. It surely does not mean that the Baptists, the Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Jews should be compelled to defend by their lives those of some other denomination.

What the Constitution did, most emphatically, was to provide for the common defense, to authorize Congress to declare war, and to raise and support armies.

By some favoring this bill it is claimed that those aliens who do agree to defend this country by force of arms, are insincere. It is curious how they arrive at the conclusion that all those whom this bill would exempt are truthful and all the rest are false and potential gangsters.

We know that there are those who favor this bill who stand for things which, if carried out, would destroy our Government. On the Griffin bill committee (according to their letterheads) are at least three members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, one of whose aims it is to “support laws looking to the gradual abolition of property privileges. These names are Jane Addams, Emily Greene Balch, and Miss Mary Woolley.

Mr. William Bailie (who appeared in behalf of the bill, and is the author of Josiah Warren, the First American Anarchist, and was associated with William Morris in the Socialist League, and is also a contributor to reform and economic journals, according to the 1924–25 Who's Who in America), says he does not hold to their beliefs. But I think he is in bad company.

Others on the Griffin committee are known for their constant criticism of this Government. Why should they be interested in people coming to a place where the Government is so bad. Why should not they counsel these aliens to stay where they are.

We are told that these people, which this bill exempts, particularly the ones that have been objects of court procedure, will honor and glorify our country. They are here in this country now, free to spread their philosophical opinions, and we don't notice that we are particularly glorified. It seems to me that many see something in this bill beyond exempting Quakers.

We who are opposed see it giving a legal status to the pacifists and others seeking to evade military duty, we see it making military burdens unequal, and we see our own national defenders overworked.

The American Legion, representing more than 1,000,000 men who have fought, asks that all applicants for citizenship bear arms. The American Legion Auxiliary, representing their womenkind, demand that our present national defenders do not have to do double duty.

Mr. FREE. I take it, Mrs. Fries, that if you believe there is any doubt as to an alien becoming a good citizen, it better be resolved in favor of the Government instead of in favor of the alien.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »