Our thirty-second national encampment, held at Kansas City, Mo., during September of last year, unanimously adopted the following

resolution:

Resolved, by the thirty-second National Encampment, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That this organization does hereby condemn most bitterly the attitude of any and all organizations, religious or otherwise, throughout the United States in their advocacy of abolishing the pledge requiring naturalized citizens to bear arms in defense of our country.

Mr. Chairman, the Veterans of Foreign Wars hold that no person should be admitted to citizenship who is not willing to defend his country in time of war. And we sincerely hope this committee will not favorably report the bills now under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON. In your military experience you must have met a good many citizens of the United States who were naturalized and who were serving as soldiers?

Mr. RAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Would it be your opinion that as to naturalized citizens nine out of ten of the naturalized citizens would like to take their places right along with the native-born citizens in their defense of the Government?

Mr. RAY. I think the World War proved that very conclusively.

Mr. JOHNSON. And that being so, isn't it a fair presumption that a provision like this having to do with proposed naturalized aliens is really an offense to those well-meaning naturalized citizens who want to be good American citizens?

Mr. RAY. I believe that there is no doubt on that. That is the reason we are opposing such a provision.

Mr. LLOYD. I will now call on Colonel Orvel Johnson.

STATEMENT OF COL. ORVEL JOHNSON, REPRESENTING THE RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Colonel JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Orvel Johnson, a lawyer by profession. I am, and for more than two years have been, the executive secretary and treasurer of the R. O. T. C. Association of the United States, a corporation devoted to the promotion of the interests and welfare of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and the republican form of government of the United States of America. The association is composed of many outstanding citizens of the Nation and has its headquarters in Washington, the District of Columbia. I am a veteran of the Spanish-American and World Wars.

The intent and purpose of the Griffin bill, now before you, is calculated to bring about a revolutionary principle in government. Should it be enacted into law, the will and pleasure of foreign-born persons, at least so far as those seeking citizenship in the United States is concerned would be substituted for the most vital, fundamental principle of our basic law, the Constitution.

The foundation stone upon which a republic is established is the duty of its citizens to support and defend it in peace and in war. To remove that obligation is to strike at the very foundation of the Government. The Supreme Court of the United States has time after time stated and restated, "That it is the duty of citizens by

force of arms to defend our Government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution," therefore, no law Congress could adopt relieving any person of this obligation of citizenship would be constitutional.

In admitting foreign-born persons to citizenship without requiring the assumption of the obligation, "to defend with arms if necessary," the United States would not acquire that degree of absolute control of such citizens as it now has and exercises over native-born citizens. Since the Constitution gives the Congress absolute control over all citizens, the admission of foreign-born persons to a limited or qualified citizenship would defeat the very purpose of the Constitution. The fundamental obligations of citizenship must forever remain alike for all citizens. Any attempt to establish a class of citizenship upon a preferred basis would be to create a class of citizens "outside" of the Constitution and the control of Congress. Such a plan would be repugnant to the republican form of government, and, moreover, in violation of the Constitution, as it would constitute class legislation. Such a discrimination between citizens would throw the burden of national defense upon the native born, or, in other words, penalize Americans because of their America birth. By no stretch of the imagination can such a step be justified. It is unthinkable.

The obligations of citizenship, and the qualifications for citizenship, must be prescribed by the Congress in accord with the fundamental principle of the Constitution.

After the admission of foreign-born persons to citizenship on an equal basis with the native born, Congress may, of course, under statutes applicable to both foreign and native born citizens, relieve conscientious objectors of certain phases of military duties.

The control of the Congress is absolute over all citizens; the obligations of all citizens to defend their country with arms if necessary is equally absolute. The Congress may not bargain with foreigners to induce them to become citizens, no more than can the courts, but once such persons have assumed the full and complete obligations of citizenship they may, of course, enjoy all rights and privileges of other citizens.

Upon the absolute power over all citizens by the Congress, John Quincy Adams said:

This power is tremendous; it is strictly constitutional; but it breaks down every barrier so anxiously erected for the protection of liberty, property, and life.

To the end that war may not result in defeat, freedom of speech may, by act of Congress, be curtailed or denied so that the morale of the people and the spirit of the Army may not be broken by seditious utterances; freedom of the press curtailed to preserve our military plans and movements from the knowledge of the enemy; deserters and spies put to death without indictment or trial by jury; ships and supplies requisitioned; property of alien enemies, theretofore under protection of the Constitution, seized without process and converted to the public use without compenstion and without due process of law in the ordinary sense of that term; prices of food and other necessities of life fixed or regulated; railways taken over and operated by the Government; and other drastic powers, wholly inadmissable in time of peace, exercised to meet the emergencies of war.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, in speaking of the Union, said:

Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescance in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of political systems is the right of a people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish Government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. There will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its hands.

Who that is a sincere friend of it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundations of the fabric?

Gentlemen of the committee, we owe no obligation as a nation to our foreign-born neighbors; we do owe all to the loyal, patriotic citizens of this country, who are burdened as never before with the task of resisting sinister influences from abroad, some of which have taken root in American soil. It is not inconceivable that Congress may again need to call upon them to defend our Constitution and the American institutions. It is but reasonable, therefore, to ask you gentlemen and your colleagues to refrain from taking any step, whatever the urge may be, that will weaken the control of the Congress over our entire citizenship; to take any step that will operate as a discrimination against native-born Americans and in favor of foreigners. We stand for and believe in America first, and that man is unworthy to enjoy liberties he is unwilling to defend.

We urge you to consider as the country does, and in the future will, the true significance of the fact that practically every organization and leader advocating radical and international political programs, are supporting this measure, whereas, practically every patriotic group is vigorously opposing it.

In support of that statement, your attention is called to the action of the so-called radical and international groups. I propose to show you from their own records that it is a part of their program to support this measure. I have based my statement on a report of a meeting of radical organizations in conference in New York City, June 6, 1931.

The following allied groups of radicals met in joint conference on June 6, 1931, at the New School for Social Research, New York City. Only delegates with cards were admitted.

Labor Bureau (Inc.).

League for Industrial Democracy.

Methodist Federation for Social Service.

National Association for Advancement of Colored People.

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
World Peace Commission.

This meeting was held, quoting from their own report, to complete plans for "joint agencies to work for legislation in behalf of thirty organizations."

Then they said:

Headquarters are to be set up in Washington, D. C., with similar offices in each State, to work for legislation on the following subjects discussed at the meeting and such other subjects as might later be agreed upon.

Their legislative program is:

Joint action for the defense of civil liberties.

Protection of aliens.

Defending the rights of minority races.

Cooperation with working class movements.
Liberation of Mooney and Billings.

Passage of Federal anti-injunction bills.

Recognition of Russia.

Freedom of the Philippines.

Enactment of legislation to admit pacifists to citizenship.

There is the origin of the proposal before us:

Repeal of Federal laws forbidding free dissemination of birth-control information.

Opposition to the use of armed forces in Latin America.

Ways and means of preventing future wars.

Combatting militarism in the United States.

Opposition to censorship of stage, books, moving pictures, and the radio. Disapproval of police "brutality," prosecution of radical law breakers, etc. Protection for political and industrial prisoners.

Opposition to alien registration.

Contesting deportation.

Obstacles to naturalization.

Problems of Chinese, Japanese, Philippine, Mexican radicals, the loosening of tension of the Government on them.

Aid to strikers.

Unemployment insurance.

Cooperatives.

Workers' education.

At that conference the Rev. Harry F. Ward presided over a conference of five sections which discussed "methods that will work simultaneously."

Rev. John Nevin Sayre, presided over a sectional conference for the discussion of ways and means.

Roger N. Baldwin presided over another discussing defense of civil liberties, during which police activities against and the prosecuton of radical law breakers were denounced. At the same time, political and industrial prsoners, Federal legislation, legislative relief from injunctions, and censorship of stage, books, motion pictures, and the radio, were taken up.

Reed Lewis led a symposium on the protection of aliens. This covered methods of deportation, alien registration, obstacles of naturalization, problems of the Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Mexican radicals in the United States, and the need for new Federal laws and amendments to loosen government tension on them.

Robert Bagnell headed a group dealing with Negro and Jewish problems.

Louis Budens led a group on "Workers' Education," aid to strikers, unemployment insurance, and cooperatives.

Plans were made to continue the joint action of the conference through standing committees and with the understanding that con

certed action is to be taken on Congress when it convenes and on all State legislatures.

At about the time the above information was received, it was learned the National Socialist Party, located in Chicago, Ill., had officially announced it would move its national headquarters to Washington, D. C., to the better direct its efforts toward socialistic legislation, including Government ownership of mines, doles, antimilitarism, and practically the whole program of the "thirty organizations." announced above.

During midsummer it was announced in Washington, that following the plan of the above-mentioned organizations, the committee on the cause and cure of war, Carrie Chapman Catt's group of nine organizations with an alleged membership of 5,000,000 women, would establish its headquarters in Washington for the purpose of working for legislation along its previously announced pacifistic lines.

This is the organization of radicals that are presenting this unAmerican program. They were headed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Congress of the United States has had that organization under careful study and consideration.

In the report of Chairman Fish of the Committee to Investigate Communistic Activities in the United States we find in the language of Mr. Fish the following:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 per cent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the A. C. L. U. is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution.

Roger N. Baldwin, its guiding spirit, makes no attempt to hide his friendship for the communists and their principles. He was formerly a member of the I. W. W. and served a term in prison as a draft dodger during the war. This is the same Roger N. Baldwin that has recently issued a statement "That in the next session of Congress our job is to organize the opposition to the recommendations of the congressional committee investigating communism." In his testimony before the committee he admitted having said at a dinner held in Chicago that "The Fish committee recommendations will be buried in the Senate."

Testifying on force and violence, murder, etc., the following is quoted : "The CHAIRMAN. Does your organization uphold the right of a citizen or alien-it does not make any difference which-to advocate murder?

"Mr. BALDWIN. Yes.

"The CHAIRMAN. Or assassination?

"Mr. BALDWIN. Yes.

"The CHAIRMAN. Does your organization uphold the right of an American citizen to advocate force and violence for the overthrow of the Government? "Mr. BALDWIN. Certainly; in so far as mere advocacy is concerned. "The CHAIRMAN. Does it uphold the right of an alien in this country to urge the overthrow and advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence?

"Mr. BALDWIN. Precisely on the same basis as any citizen.

"The CHAIRMAN. You do uphold the right of an alien to advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence?

"Mr. BALDWIN. Sure; certainly. It is the healthiest kind of thing for a country, of course, to have free speech-unlimited."

The American Civil Liberties Union has received large sume from the Garland fund, of which Roger N. Balwin is one of the directors. During the trial of the communists at Gastonia, not for freedom of speech, of the press, or assembly, but for a conspiracy to kill the chief of police, of which seven defendants were convicted, the A. C. L. U. provided bail for five of the defendants,