Mr. GRIFFIN. We next have Dr. Emma Wold, official expert of the conference upon international legislation at The Hague in 1930.

STATEMENT OF DR. EMMA WOLD

Doctor WOLD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I speak as an individual. The committee will recognize that, on other occasions, I have appeared as a spokesman for certain organizations. To-day I come to speak for myself; to make a confession of faith in my belief in the traditional policies of the United States, as Chief Justice Hughes outlined them in his dissenting opinion in the MacIntosh case.

You will remember that Chief Justice Hughes said:

There is abundant room for enforcing the requisite authority of law as it is enacted and require obedience, and for maintaining the conception of the supremacy of law as essential to orderly government, without demanding that either citizens or applicants for citizenship shall assume by oath an obligation to regard allegiance to God as subordinate to allegiance to civil power. The attempt to extract such promise, and thus bind one's conscience by the taking of an oath or the submission to test, has been the cause of many deplorable conflicts. The Congress has sought to avoid such conflicts in this country by respecting our happy traditions.

And before that, Chief Justice Hughes had said a good deal about the traditions of the United States, with regard to our policy to incoming citizens, aliens coming in.

Mr. FREE. May I interrupt you just a moment? Can you give me the official citation of the other case-not the Swimmer case? Doctor WOLD. The MacIntosh case?

Mr. FREE. Yes.

Doctor WOLD. Two hundred and eighty-three United States, 605, and I was quoting from page 634.

It is true that the contention of the Chief Justice on this occasion was overruled by a majority of one against him and his supporters in the Supreme Court; but notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court as to the construction of this particular provision in the naturalization act, which has been under consideration, the fact seems to be that the United States has always had a policy, such as Chief Justice Hughes said it had; and I hope, as an individual, as a citizen of the United States, that we may restore that policy; and that is why I come to speak in behalf of Mr. Griffin's bill, for the restoration of the policy which we, many of us, as citizens believe was the policy of the United States.

I have another reason for speaking in behalf of this bill (and those of you who know that my interest has, for many years, been concerned with the citizenship of the American women, will understand that this comes very near to my heart), and that is that, under the law as it has been interpreted, the American-born women, with American breeding, and educated in this country, who lost their citizenship before the Cable Act of September 22, 1922, and now make their application for restoration of that citizenship, are refused on the very ground upon which Professor MacIntosh, an alien born and bred, was refused-it is because I am interested in that phase of it and in the restoration of the traditional policy of the United States, which has a kind regard for these consciences, that I am here to-day. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The next witness is Dr. Henry M. Haviland, of the Religious Society of Friends, New York City.

STATEMENT OF HENRY M. HAVILAND, REPRESENTING THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. HAVILAND. I am not a doctor, I am an attorney by profession, practicing in New York City. I am not here as an attorney, but I happen to be one by profession.

Now, I represent and am sent here by the peace committee of the New York meeting of the religious Society of Friends and I appear here as representing the Society of Friends of that meeting. The CHAIRMAN. What is your address?

Mr. HAVILAND. One hundred and twenty Front Street, Manhattan Borough, New York City.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. HAVILAND. I have here a copy of the brief of the decision in the MacIntosh case and of the dissenting opinion-copies of both opinions. Those opinions place the Society of Friends here in America in a rather peculiar position. Some of the Friends themselves, one especially, Margaret Dorland Webb, married, I believe, an American-I am not sure of that, whether she married an American citizen or not-but here name was Margaret Dorland. I have no acquaintance with her. She lives in Ohio, but I knew her brother fairly well; and Margaret Dorland Webb was refused admission because she was a loyal Friend; it was because of her loyalty as a Friend, and because she believed in peace, and in working for peace, and she could not answer that she would take up arms for the United States, even if women were called upon. She believed in peace.

Now, that is one of the tenets of our Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers-that is our historic belief.

The society got its origin in England and the Friends came and founded one of the States of this Union. A Quaker stands at the top pinnacle-you have all seen it of the city hall in Philadelphia; and pictures of William Penn and George Fox, the founder of the organization of Friends, are in the capitol at Harrisburg.

It would seem as though Friends have the right and ought to have the privilege of becoming citizens of the United States; yet here this Friend, Margaret Dorland Webb, and others have come in from other countries and tried to become citizens, as well as member of our local society, and they are not allowed to do it, unless they will swear to take up arms which is foreswearing their oaths. It would seem almost as though, if we Friends were not born here, if our ancestors, as mine did, came to help settle the country, had come here now, we could not become citizens. Can Quakers be the same as any undesirable aliens, not wanted as citizens? It seems to me utterly unfair. If I am not esteemed to be an unworthy citizen, but generally esteemed to be a worthy citizen, heretofore, why can not some members of our society from England, from Canada, and occasionally from France, and a few in Germany and a few in the Scandinavian countries-why can not we come in and become citizens, as they come here and join our societies? They are not worthy to

become citizens, however, because they refuse to swear they will take up arms at all events.

It seems to me there ought to be some change in the law which will allow Friends to become citizens. We who live here, born here, our forefathers born here, helping to establish the United Stateswe are not undesirable, surely.

Now, there is no question about it, that we are believers in peace. Mr. FREE. May I interrupt you just a moment? Is it a tenet of the Society of Friends that they will not take up arms, even in defense of their country or their homes?

Mr. HAVILAND. I do not want to misrepresent in any way, and I would like to answer your question by stating what it says here in the discipline of the orthodox Friends, the Reform Discipline. I belong to the liberal branch of the Friends. I will read first what the established meeting, the New York meeting-it happens to be in the first book I picked up, and these two brief selections will help show that. It is under the heading of "War and peace" in the New York Discipline:

We have found it to be our duty to bear our faithful testimony against war, in accordance with the Gospel, which breathes peace on earth and good will toward men. God's law of love, as fully exemplified by the life of Jesus, is applicable to nations as well as individuals. Friends are earnestly advised on all occasions to act in a Christian and peaceable manner, and not only to refuse to bear arms, but to engage in no business tending to promote war, nor to unite with any in a way calculated to incite or encourage the spirit of war. We greatly desire that the children of our country shall be imbued with the true conception of patriotism and service to the Nation and to humanity. We honestly advise the Friends to exert themselves at all times to make our country a prudent factor in the advancement of the world and to work to improve the civic, economic, and moral faith of our country

You see, we have affection for this place so we call it our country. The CHAIRMAN. At this point, without trying to interrupt your thought, assume that this country was at no fault and war was brought upon us by other countries, is it the policy of these Quakers, in spite of conditions through no fault of ours that we were brought into the war and we have to defend our homes and our lands and our country that they would stand back and refuse to cooperate with the American people?

Mr. HAVILAND. I can not answer just yes or not, but I can answer perhaps by an incident: During the late war, there were many of our Friends who were loyal Friends, who thought that the United States was right, and although the war act of 1917 especially exempted them, perhaps not by name but by description which applied to them some of our young men went to war; and so far as I know, not one of those young men was disciplined by that meeting, because we wanted to feel that every man should act as the Spirit of God taught him he should act. No one can force an opinion as to how one shall decide as to the Spirit of God; no one can decide, I suppose, absolutely, but each man has to decide right in his own conscience; it is in himself to decide whether it is right for him to do, or not to do; and our Quaker organizations did not discipline, did not decide for any young man that he should or should not go to war. One young man who felt inclined to go to war came to see me about it before he went, and I advised him to do as his conscience dictated, and he went and never came back, and his mother is a Gold Star mother.

That will be what will happen when the United States gets into any war. I believe that the young men who feel that our country is right, that their consciences will tell them to go to war, to join the United States Army; but we ask permission that he shall not be asked in advance, when we come over, that we will go into it, whether the conscience says yes or no. We want to be fair and full of love for this country. Why should not we be? Our ancestors helped to establish it-those who have been here as long as mine have; it belongs to us, as much as it does to anybody.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yet you want everybody else to come in?
Mr. HAVILAND. Not everybody.

Mr. JOHNSON. Where are you going to draw the line?

Mr. HAVILAND. I do not know, but there was a line drawnMr. JOHNSON. That is a very serious question.

Mr. HAVILAND. Mr. Johnson, if I may so speak, there was a line drawn in the war act of 1917. That was a time of exigency; that was a time, as was said of another period, that tried men's souls. I am sure we all remember that it was. Yet, in the war act, that act called upon all of the young men of our Nation to come and defend the Republican thought, Democratic thought, and they accepted them in the broad philosophical sense. I have a copy of

the war act here somewhere.

Mr. JOHNSON. You may insert it.

Mr. HAVILAND. But at any rate, they used the phrase in that act that those were exempt from taking arms, exempt from the draft, if they belonged to existing religious organizations which had tenets opposed to war, and these persons conscientiously objected to war.

Now, it seems to me if that could be done in time of war, there could be something like this bill submitted in time of peace. The exigency is not so great; this time now that tries men's souls; we are calmer, but our beloved Government was broad enough in that time of exigency to allow us to be exempt from the draft, notwithstanding some of our young men went in.

Another friend of mine went to our Brooklyn meeting, and he became a member of the Aviation Corps. He never got to the other side. He went to Florida and in due time he was retained. in Florida as a teacher of aviation. On one of his flights over the ocean, showing somebody else, he fell into the water. He was not drowned, but he was badly damaged and was in the hospital for some months.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not got a list of the Friends in the last war?

Mr. HAVILAND. No; I think no list was ever made, so far as I know, but those are two instances.

Mr. DIES. I do not say this by way of disparagement, because I have lots of respect for them, but the real tenet is that they are opposed to any character of war; is not that correct?

Mr. HAVILAND. Yes; we feel it is contrary to the teachings of Christ. You are Mr. Crowe, are you not?

Mr. DIES. I am Mr. Dies.

Mr. HAVILAND. Are you not opposed to any war?
Mr. DIES. NO; indeed.

111460-32

Mr. HAVILAND. I think you are opposed to having any war anymore. You are opposed to having any war at all. You do not want any foreign country to attack this country, so there shall be war, do you? That is the kind of thing that I believe in, that I want no wars at all. I want no country to attack this country, so there shall be war; so I am against any war that anybody can imagine, and so are you.

Mr. DIES. Sure, against war, but not against defense

Mr. HAVILAND. We are all against wars and I believe every member of this committee is against all wars. We want no more of that kind of thing. What we shall do when the emergency comes, is another study; that is a different thing. Now, some of our young men feel that, when war does come, that they have a duty to their country and their consciences, and we want to be left free-we want our young men to be allowed to come in; but I think there is no question about it, that any war is contrary to the teachings of the Prince of Peace.

Mr. JOHNSON. Including Manchuria?

Mr. HAVILAND. Yes; including all of the trouble in Manchuria. Mr. JOHNSON. And the rest of the countries, where there are wars and rumors of war, that is wrong?

Mr. HAVILAND. Yes; all war is wrong. I think there can be no question that every member of this committee believes that war is wrong; but what you are when you are attacked is another question. I would like a minute more, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I would like to read you a very brief extract from this other Discipline, of the other body of Friends to which I belong. It is as follows:

We feel bound explicitly to avow our unshaked persuasion that all war is utterly incompatible with the plain precepts of our divine Lord and lawgiver, and the whole spirit of His gospel, and that no plea of necessity or policy, however urgent or peculiar, can avail to release either individuals or nations from the paramount allegience which they owe to Him who hath said, "Love your enemies." In enjoining this love and the forgiveness of injuries, He who has brought us to Himself has not prescribed for man, precepts which are incapable of being carried into practice or of which the practice is to be postponed until all shall be persuaded to act upon them.

We can not doubt that they are incumbent now, and that we have in the prophetic Scriptures the distinct intimation of their direct application, not only to individuals, but to nations also. When nations conform their laws to this divine teaching, wars must necessarily cease.

We would, in humility, but in faithfulness to our Lord, express our firm persuasion that all the exigencies of civil government and social order may be met under the banner of the Prince of Peace, in strict conformity with His commands.

Now, I may have spoken, under the excitement of the moment, a little more strongly than I should, as to what some of them feel, in expressing rather my own thoughts. I know that some of our Friends would feel that, even defense by military means is not in accordance with the teaching of Christ.

Mr. DIES. That is what I am getting at.

Mr. HAVILAND. I do not want to deny that I was perhaps only speaking my own thoughts.

Mr. DIES. What was the original belief of the founders of that society?

Mr. HAVILAND. Doctor Fox was the founder of the organization. We think, ourselves, that greater than he was the founder of the society, but Doctor Fox was the founder of the organization, and