Imagini ale paginilor


The CHAIRMAN. Except for a summing up by both sides, fifteen minutes each.

[merged small][ocr errors]


Mr. Cooke. I have a very brief statement in regard to the general idea that has been conveyed during this entire hearing, that this was an application upon the part of the American aliens for this change in the naturalization laws and I think that is a wrong implication that can be drawn from the hearings. As a matter of fact, the number of aliens who are seeking naturalization and seeking to evade the duty and obligation to defend the country in time of war is insignificant in number. I have listened to the representatives of the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Mexican War, and so forth, but I do want to convey to the committee and have put into the record the idea that a great preponderance or a majority of all the aliens who have come into this country have gladly and willingly accepted the responsibility to bear arms in the defense of the country. That is proven by the record in the Civil War; it is proven by the record in the World War, and it is proven by the fact that scarcely any of them ask for the passage of this bill except a few aliens, and it is an unjust implication against the aliens of this country who do seek naturalization.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very fair statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will add along the same line that in addition to my other basic objections to this bill, I am afraid that a movement of this kind is highly offensive and dangerous to that large wellmeaning alien population that we intend and hope to assimilate into the body politic who want to be with us and of us.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, I will place in the record at this point a statement submitted by Mr. James H. Patton and a letter just received from the National Catholic Welfare Conference. (There was no objection.)





Mr. PATTEN. I appear in opposition to H. R. 297 and H. R. 298. I represent the Immigration Restriction League, incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, as chairman of its national legislative committee; the State council, Junior Order United American Me. chanics of the State of New York (Inc.), as national legislative representative; the executive council of the Fraternal Patriotic Americans, as national legislative agent; and the commandery general, Patriotic Order Sons of America, as chairman of its national legislative committee.

Although these two bills, H. R. 297 and 298, declare in their preambles their object to be: To provide that religious views or philosophical opinions against war shall not debar aliens from citizenship the text of the two bills contains the apparently contradictory provision that every alien admitted to citizenship shall be subject

[ocr errors]

to the same obligations as the native-born citizen. Every nativeborn citizen is absolutely and completely subject without any mental reservation or legislative exemption, such as that raised by these two bills, H. R. 297 and H. R. 298, to the full and complete discretion of Congress and the President to have them bear arms, wage war, and even shed their own or others' blood in defense of our country, its constitutions, its Christian civilization and for the protection of its citizens, whether they be the abled bodied, the aged and infirm, or the innocent citizen babes in arms, such manner and whenever a national emergency arises and Congress and the President direct. To admit aliens to citizenship on the express legislative enactment that they would not have to bear arms would create a privileged class, impliedly if not expressly, exempt from the supreme citizenship duty of defending our country in time of foreign invasion, and would amount to either special un-American class legislation or nothing at all. That it is regarded as striking at the very foundation of our splendid government is shown by the fact that Communists, radical pacifists and so-called Liberals of both the philosophical parlor pink hue and even the Nihilist religious red variety and every other breed of enemies of our representative government seem to want these two bills, H. R. 297 and H. R. 298, enacted into law, not for “ religious” and “philosophical ” freedom, but as a definite step in weakening and eventually destroying this government of ours and in erecting here on its ruins a tyrannical communistic form of autocratic government where there would be not only no “philosophical ” freedom as to any use of force, but also no freedom of opinion as to economic industrial, financial, commercial, or other political state policies and where no doubt even “religiously” coercive efforts would be made, as they have been in Russia, even to banish from men's souls, hearts, and minds any hope of immortality, or belief in a hereafter.

The four patriotic American organizations I have the honor to represent believe that in this present old unregenerated world no nation is a nation that does not directly or indirectly have the full war sanction and backing of an army and navy, any more than any town, city or State can long function without any police force. We not only believe that in the present unregenerated state of this old world an army and navy are as necessary an attribute nationally as health, fire, and police departments are locally, but that it should be the first and supreme earthly duty of every citizen of the United States, without any prior allegiance, to be willing for Congress, representing the will of the majority and therefore of the people, to decide when war is necessary and proper, and who should do what in time of war-and even as a last resort decide the shedding of his or her blood, or the blood of some one else. We believe in organized society, that we here in the United States, as a result of the American Revolution, have the greatest and best written or unwritten charter of government and human liberties in all history and that to respond to a congressional call to arms is and should be and remain the first and supreme earthly duty of every native born and naturalized citizen and that every alien who would enjoy and share beneficient protection of our government, the marvelous freedom of body, mind, and soul it affords, should, without any mental reservation, " philosophical” evasion or “religious” equivocation, be willing 100 per cent to agree to play the full 100 per cent courageous man's part any

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

other citizen is called upon, or may be called upon by Congress and the President, speaking for and constitutionally representing the people of the United States, to play in either peace or war. To do any less will be to make us a haven and refuge for all the alien cowards and slackers of the whole wide world.

We have here, as a result of the war for independence, a real nation and the greatest written state paper of all the centuries, and in this the great government of the ages, our written Constitution in vox populi, and vox populi is vox Dei, and it declares: “We the people of the United States of America do empower Congress to provide for the common defense,” to organize an army

and “discipline a militia,” to build and inaintain a navy, and to declare and wage wars. Everyone must hope for the day when men and women will be guided 100 per cent by the Golden Rule and will do as Christ, the Prince of Peace, would have us do, but until that millenial day of logical mind perfection and perfect conscience compulsion comes our free institutions, “the freedom of speech " and press, “the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” of the Constitution, as well as freedom of mind and of conscience, can no more be retained and maintained nationally than it could be locally without law and sanction, and without executives and policemen. We believe unequivocally that every loyal and desirable citizen should be willing unreservedly for Congress to have the discretion to call him or her to play a full and courageous part when it comes to saving our country, its institutions, and even our Christian civilization from peril or destruction, just as Charles Martel," the Hammer of Christendom," and his brave men saved Christianity and our civilization for us on the battlefield of Tours ten centuries ago, and just as our precious free institutions and Christian civilization, to which our preeminence materially, mentally, and morally is due, has been repeatedly saved from destruction by a resort to force and even war. Is it not even related in the Book of Books that only by the waging of war was the devil driven out of Heaven?

The members of the organizations I have the honor to represent can not reconcile individual“ philosophical” or “religious” supremacy in State affairs to the contrarily, constitutionally expressed and enacted will of the majority. If everyone or any one were to be a law unto himself, there can be no law. Aliens who do not believe in a full-fledged Nation like ours and are unwilling to abide by the will of the majority in what we declare to be State affairs, whether it be polygamy or defending our country with his life, should not be admitted to citizenship, and we enthusiastically commend the repeated decisions of the United States Supreme Court to that effect, in the various cases involving the constitutional point these two bills seek to remedy, and which we most respectfully submit really should and only really can be remedied by constitutional amendment abolishing our Army, Navy, and all other constitutional resort to force. If and when such a monstrous amendment were adopted, we would not have a Nation or anything worthy of that name, and in these days would become through inherent weakness the mere “poached preserves” of other powers and “partitioned out," “

precisely as the country and sovereignty and property of over 400,000,000 of people of the alleged oldest "civilization are now partitioned out," its customs duties being collected, its post-office revenues taken,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


and even parts of its territory absolutely dominated by foreign powers, and where individual wealth in the form of “Mexican dollars” measures the size of the Army and power that any man, interest, or influence can and wills to have, and where life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of opinion and even worship have no real guarantee whatever. Such a chaotic, nondescript land instead of our country ought to be the “philosophical ” or religious goal and ideal of opponents of the use of force or bars, one of whom by the name of Margolis in answer to a question by Senator McKellar declared before a congressional investigating committee some years ago that if he came home late some night and found a fiend ravishing his wife or young daughter (and he has each) he would merely ask the fiend to “ desist.” Why alien opponents of all force will pass by China so much more the ideal of their dreams and come to the United States, seeking special exempting naturalization legislation is explained by the fact that we are a Nation and have more law and order, and more justice and liberty than any other country, wages and returns here for personal effort being as a result of our Government and institutions from four to forty times more than in any other land.

The "conscientious objector” is no new alien arrival. He prefers one strong representative Government. His own inherent, forceless weakness would soon lead to his extermination without the forceful protection of others. When he goes to a foreign land where Gov. ernment is weak and does not afford adequate protection-and when he goes even on a “religious" or "philosophical ” mission, he is the first to cry out the loudest and longest for Uncle Sam's Army and Navy, and then when it is a case of his rescue, Uncle Sam can not send too many soldiers or too many warships too fast. We have already in our midst, as I said, it seems to me, quite enough concientious objectors, and it is most respectfully suggested that we do not need any increase in their number or the number of war cowards and war slackers this special class legislation would certainly tend to invite and create by the immigration and naturalization routes. There are also already in our midst all the foreign born and native born antinational, international, and anti-American-minded persons we can comfortably get along with. The communist, radical,

. pacifist, and so-called “liberals,” opposed to our organized Government and active in its overthrow, are backing these two bills to such an extent their introducer has felt called upon at this hearing to repudiate some of the testimony of some of his bill's own witnesses, and he has admitted it would permit the naturalization of and admit to our electorate an alien who has boldly and blatantly declared and heralded herself to be an “uncompromising antinationalist,” and who has nebulously described herself as having some sort of “ Cosmic conscience," and a mere "international interest in human beings as

“ such." Regardless of his repudiation of such prospective beneficiaries of this proposed legislation, these two bills, if enacted into law, would permit the naturalization of and make voters in time of alien communists, war slackers, and cowards, as well as "100 per cent conscientious objectors," who are now debarred because they say they so abhor the use of force they are not willing for Congress to retain its war power discretion over them, but still want to become citizens of a country whose Constitution clothes its executive and legislative branches with full 100 per cent waging powers.

These two bills do appeal to the enemies of our Government, some of whom, although mere uninvited guests, plan and plot to pull down this house of ours upon our very heads, and would give more of them a chance to get in and to stay inside this house of ours that they want to destroy. Such bills should not only not pass, but it is most respectfully suggested should not be dignified with the hearing and consideration you have so generously accorded them, and that if any bill is reported it be House Joint Resolution 255, by Congressman Dies of this committee, barring from citizenship all aliens who do not " wholly accept the responsibility involved" or who are “ unwilling to take an unqualified oath of allegiance” to our country and its Constitution.

[ocr errors]

I thank you.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


Washington, D, C., January 27, 1932.
Chairman House Committee on Immigration,

United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Because at the hearings of your committee it was stated by some one who spoke in favor of H. R. 298 that the Catholics of this country were also in favor of said bill, we have been asked to declare whether that statement is accurate or not.

So far as the administrative committee, National Catholic Welfare Conference, is concerned, it is inaccurate..

With regard to this bill the administrative committee wishes to put itself on record as follows:

In the judgment of the administrative committee every citizen owes full and loyal obed ce to the State. The State is not an absolute power, but in its own proper field it is sovereign. The State is the servant of God. Our own Supreme Court has declared that, the child is not the mere creature of the State.”

It is no unjust limitation to the power of the State to say that such power is subject to God. That power is the safety of the individual's freedom and dignity, the sole guarantee of those unalienable rights of man of which our Declaration of Independence speaks. It is also the true safeguard of the State for it makes loyalty to the State a matter of conscience, giving to that loyalty the highest possible sanction.

Conscience, therefore-a consistent, informed judgment based on certain and definite principles founded on the divine and natural law and logically supported by the spiritual beliefs of the individual-is the sole reason a citizen may give for nonobedience to the laws of a State.

Philosophical opinion” is to our mind a phrase too unstable and indefinite to bear such a great weight.

Thanking you for the opportunity of placing this statement before your committee, we remain Respectfully yours,


General Secretary.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Now, you may proceed, Mr. Lloyd, to close for the
opponents of the bill.

Mr. Lloyd. These bills, as we all know, provide that citizenship
shall not be refused on account of religious beliefs or philosophic
opinions regarding war. As a member of the committee pointed
out, that last is a very important phrase.

Why is this legislation wanted and by whom? A large number of very well meaning, very innocent, generous people who do not realize what is at stake, Other people who say they believe in a certain principle and want to carry it to the infinite degree regardless

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »