amounting to $28,500, which it secured from the Garland, fund. All of the de fendants convicted jumped their bail and are reported to be in Russia. The $28,500 bail was forfeited, including $9,000 more advanced by the International Labor Defense.

A committee of the New York State Legislature, back in 1928, known as the Lust committee, reached the following conclusion in regard to the American Civil Liberties Union:

The CHAIRMAN. That was not 1928. It was either 1918 or 1919. I was in the legislature at the time of the Lust committee.

Colonel JOHNSON. This reference to the Lust committee is quoted. The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Colonel JOHNSON. It is stated here as 1928. That is probably an error. But it was the Lust committee.

The committee reached the following conclusion in regard to the American Civil Liberties Union:

The American Civil Liberties Union, in the last analysis, is a supporter of all subversive movements. Its propaganda is detrimental to the interests of the State. It attempts not only to protect crime but to encourage attacks upon our institutions in every form.

Your committee concurs with the above findings.

The principles of free speech, free press, and free assembly are worthy of an organization that stands for our republican form of government, guaranteed to the Constitution, and for the ideals of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, instead of an organization whose main work is to uphold the communists in spreading revolutionary propaganda and inciting revolutionary activities to undermine our American institutions and overthrow our Federal Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think we have had enough on that? Colonel JOHNSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have given us a clear demonstration. Colonel JOHNSON. The Federal Council of Churches has been referred to. I would like to read one or two of its resolutions.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will be brief. There are other witnesses here that have to be heard.

Mr. FREE. I would like to hear that also.

Colonel JOHNSON. If there is no objection, I will read this. It will be very brief indeed.

The Federal Council of Churches have held three church conferences. One was in 1925 in Washington. One was in 1929 in Columbus, Ohio. The third one, in 1930, was at Evanston, Ill.

Among the resolutions adopted was the following, which was taken by myself from their official records:

War denies the Fatherhood of God, scorns the brotherhood of man, mocks the sacredness of human life, is merciless to helpless women and children, uses falsehood, ignores justice, releases the passions, and cultivates hate. War means everything that Jesus did not mean, and means nothing He did mean. We therefore hold that the churches should condemn resort to the war system as sin, and should henceforth refuse, as institutions, to sanction it or to be used as agencies in its support.

The churches should teach patriotic support of the State, in conviction the State is bound by the obligations of the Kellogg peace pact never to resort to war, but to use only peaceful means for the solution of all controversies.

The Kellogg peace pact, as you know, does not make any such provision.

We further hold that the churches should regard war, when distinguished from the exercise of police power by authorized international agencies, as a crime.

We hold that the churches should support and sustain with moral approval individuals who, in the exercise of "right of conscience," refuse to take part in war or in military training.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we are drifting a little way from the subject when we come back to the Lust committee investigation. I was a member of the Lust committee. I was one of those that voted to oust the five Socialists who were elected from the city of New York. I have gone into that investigation very much. At the same time I think we ought to confine ourselves here more to the question; and I think you have made it very clear in your opening statement. Colonel JOHNSON. My purpose in quoting from the Lust report was to show that the Civil Liberties Union years ago in its inception was what it is to-day, as found by the chairman here.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the chairman is to be congratulated for his statement in regard to that Lust investigation. I also think that Colonel Johnson is to be congratulated for his efforts in bringing together in a concise and straightforward way proof of the linking up of all these activities to undermine and get at the foundations of this Government.

Colonel JOHNSON. I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. FREE. Colonel Johnson has been reading from some pamphlet, a collection of some kind. Is that some kind of a Government document?

Colonel JOHNSON. That is a book that was issued by our association recently, entitled "Military Education in Our Schools and Colleges," containing many governmental and public records.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are two publications of this kind showing what these different organizations stand for. I think the members of the committee would like to have copies of that.

Colonel JOHNSON. I shall be very glad to supply each member with one.

Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, that completes the testimony for the American coalition. I assume that if the other side is to be given an opportunity to reply, we will be given the same opportunity? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LLOYD. I will not undertake to present a brief on the subject or anything bearing on it. We did not go into it that far. The CHAIRMAN. That closes the case?

Mr. LLOYD. That closes the case for the coalition. I understand that there are several distinguished witnesses here who are not members of our organization, who would like to be heard.

Mr. JOHNSON. I see that Colonel Grant is here.

The CHAIRMAN. Those who are not of the coalition organization, if they desire to be heard, may be heard now. I don't want to deprive them of the opportunity to be heard. But I wish they would very brief.

be

I understand that Colonel Grant would like to speak in opposition to this Griffin bill.

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. U. S. GRANT, 3D, GOVERNOR OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SOCIETY OF FOUNDERS AND PATRIOTS; COMMANDER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMANDERY OF THE LOYAL LEGION

Colonel GRANT. I am appearing here as governor of the District of Columbia Society of Founders and Patriots, and as commander of the District of Columbia Commandery of the Loyal Legion,

merely to register the two societies as being opposed to legislation of the kind suggested in H. R. 297.

May I point out one additional fact. A great number, many millions, of foreigners have been admitted to this country because they wanted to live in a country having the institutions which we enjoy. In being admitted they have assumed certain obligations. I am only one of a great many native-born citizens who, when they swear allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the country, as do these aliens already admitted to citizenship, mean what they say and say what they mean, and expect to pay whatever price is necessary in order to continue the institutions as they are now and as they may be amended or changed by legal action only.

To open the door to a privileged class of aliens who would be excepted from the privileges and duties, and at the same time enjoy the rights by which they would elect members to the legislature who have the right to declare war, and yet have no obligation to meet their duty to such a declaration, seems very unfair, not only to the native-born citizen, but to the aliens who have already been admitted, and who might be expected to have a certain contractual obligation that others will not be admitted with special privileges.

I feel that this is much more than an administrative measure. It is really a blow, or would be if passed, a blow to the very basis of our institutions and Government.

The entire country this year, 1932, is very much interested, and has been quite stirred up, in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of George Washington, not so much in order to hold a celebration, but in order to get a greater appreciation of his example as a citizen and an official of the Government. I feel that hardly any greater blow could be dealt to the work he accomplished than would be done by the passing of such legislation as this, allowing persons to enter the country and become citizens and enjoy the privileges of citizenship without assuming an obligation to maintain the government which he founded.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF FRANK L. PECKHAM, VICE PRESIDENT SENTINELS OF THE REPUBLIC, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. PECKHAM. I am here to speak on behalf of my organization, the Sentinals of the Republic. The organization has five definite purposes. We feel that this proposed legislation is opposed to at least three of our purposes, which I will read for the record. Those purposes are these: To maintain the fundamental principles of the American Constitution; to stop the spread of communism; to help preserve a free republican form of government in the United States. The following statement was adopted by the Sentinels of the Republic at their annual meeting January 9, 1932:

We oppose the passage of measures which would relieve naturalized citizens of any of the obligations which are incumbent upon natural-born citizens of the United States.

You will recall that the preamble of the Constitution of the United States written by people who had been tried in the fire of war, people

who had suffered and brought forth this Nation free of foreign domination, contains these lines:

To provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

They did their part and Americans so far have done their part toward securing and preserving the blessings of liberty for their posterity. I think we should add our part toward preserving those blessings for those generations of Americans that are to follow us.

By Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to provide for the common defense, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make regulations for the Government and regulations for the land and naval forces, and to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.

This proposed bill says to foreigners, you can come in here and if you qualify you can become one of the Militia but we make a special bargain with you that Congress is forestalled from calling you out to suppress insurrection or repel invasion. Now, there may be a question of whether or not persons coming in and taking advantage of the reservation granted them under the terms of this bill would have a legal right to refuse to serve in time of war. I am not so much concerned as to whether or not they would have a legal right, certainly the Government of the United States would be morally obligated to carry out the bargain it made with them when they invited them to our shores, and I would be as much opposed to the Government of the United States violating its moral obligations to those people as I am opposed to allowing them to come in and in advance bargain to be relieved of the obligations, or some of the important obligations, of citizenship.

war.

The Government would not only be morally obligated to exempt them from military duty, but from any kind of service in time of This reference to "bearing arms" is more or less a figure of speech. When we ask a person presenting himself or herself for naturalization, "would you bear arms," it does not mean exactly would you carry a rifle on your right shoulder or would you tote a pistol in time of war; it means would you support the armed defense of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are lots of means of waging war besides just carrying a gun. There were many of our forces actually engaged in warfare that never had an opportunity to shoot a gun, but they were engaged in war and waging war and they were bearing arms in defense of the country. Naturalized citizens, under the privilege conferred by this bill, would not only be exempted from that service but morally they would be licensed even in time of war to preach their doctrines even to the extent of discouraging those, who have not bargained for exemption, to espouse their beliefs, their philosophic and so-called religious views, against the lawfulness of war. So it goes that much further. You not only would exempt a class from service, but you virtually would confer upon them the privilege of preaching doctrines that would tempt others to refuse to serve in time of need. It not only gives them a bargain price of entry into citizenship but it gives them a cloak under which they can carry on sabotage behind the lines. I believe it was Lincoln who said, "those who are not

with us are against us," and I think that is the only philosophy in time of war.

Mr. JOHNSON. You do not need to go back as far as Lincoln. You can see it right now.

Mr. PECKHAM. I think Lincoln was right and I would rather have his opinion than mine. But these aliens who are not with us in time of war want this cloak to prevent their being interned with other enemy aliens in time of war, so that they can be free to preach their noxious doctrines and tamper with the defenses of our country.

The subject has been so thoroughly covered I need not go into it very far except I might briefly inject my own personal views. I served in the World War as an enlisted man. My philosophy and religious views are opposed to war. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments are mere rhetorical statements; they mean what they say, and I do not believe we are engaging in mere oratory when in saying the Lord's Prayer we ask, "Thy will be done, on earth," and so forth.

- That is not mere rhetoric. I would say that 95 per cent at least of the men that served in the World War were of religious convictions that were opposed to war. I should say that at least 90 per cent of them had philosophic convictions opposed to war. But it seems to me that unless and until the Almighty in his infinite wisdom sees fit to grant that supplication that we make in the Lord's Prayer, that we shall have to contend with the abominations of the devil, including war.

Mr. DIES. Did not Christ drive the money changers out of the Temple?

Mr. PECKHAM. He did, and I am afraid some of these religionists would have condemned Him for it.

Mr. FREE. I am afraid we are getting away from the bill. There are some other witnesses to be heard.

Mr. PECKHAM. This is a religious question proponents of the bill are injecting into this. They say if they can base their opposition to war on religious grounds they can come in and be citizens of your country and my country, thus advertising the United States as a refuge for the coward. It is inviting the cravens to come here and seek the protection of American citizenship under the cloak of religion.

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Have they not the right to encourage peace in every way possible?

Mr. PECKHAM. Absolutely, just the same as you and I have the right and duty to encourage peace, but I object to this country being advertised as a haven for cowards, and because in one or two instances it has been found necessary to bar from citizenship one or two persons who might have made excellent citizens, I say to you gentlemen that we do not need them badly enough to bargain with them to come here. We have many native-born citizens who are slackers and conscientious objectors of our own that are here and we can not get rid of, without inviting others to come in and join their forces.