Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization: I come before you to-day as a supporter and proponent of H. R. 297 to amend the naturalization laws and known as the Griffin bill. Somewhere, recently, I read that the place to study cause and consequence is not in compilers' charts but in one's self; that the courage to look steadily into one's heart gives one the stamp of authority. I immediately recognized this truth. So I looked into my own heart and reread there the story I set forth here and pray God it may bear the stamp of authority and impress you gentlemen with the thought of the deprivation to this beloved land of ours and the gross injustice to deponent had question 24: "If necessary, are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country?" been asked of her.

Thirty-eight years ago, in my native land, England, I made an earnest study of the theoretical governments of the world. As a result of that study I then decided that I preferred to be a sovereign citizen of these United States rather than a subject of the British Empire.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you quoting something there?

Mrs. GRAY. I am writing my own story, Mr. Johnson.

Acting upon that decision I turned my face westward in search of the sovereign citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to all persons born or naturalized therein.

I remember, as though it were yesterday, every detail of my first journey to the U. S. A. On a Friday in May, 1894, I boarded the Lydian Monarch at Tilbury Docks and shortly afterwards waved adieu to London town. Slowly the good ship ploughed her way down the Thames, past Gravesend, into the North Sea, past the white cliffs of Perfidious Albion, as the French called them in those days, and out into the English Channel. She stopped for a brief while outside the grim gray fortress of Cherbourg to pick up a few European worshippers at the shrine of liberty. Then on again, past the Isle of Wight with its pretty little white villages daintily dipping their toes in the ocean, for all the world like little children paddling, with nether garments tucked up out of reach of the waves. On and on, past the Needles and Land's End. Natural enough was the lump that came into my throat as the beautiful green slopes of Cornwall faded from view. Almost unconsciously I repeated:

Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land.

Through the mist that persisted between me and the shore, shadowy shapes arose, that looked like a mother's grave, a grey-haired father, bonnie boys and girls, brothers, sisters, and playmates; the house where I was born, and near by the old elm from under the shadows of which, Latimer the preacher gave his message to the world. With a sigh, I turned my back resolutely upon these visions, and set my face firmly toward the golden west.

Two weeks of intermittent misery followed and then in the gray dawn of a never-to-be-forgotten Sunday morning, unable to sleep, I left my cabin and went up on deck. "Ho! Ho!" was the cheery greeting from the officer on watch, " So, you've got dock fever, have you?" Instantly my heart was up in my mouth and I looked around. Ahead, blinking a weak defiance to the growing dawn, were the

lights of Fire Island. Behind, an expanse of water as smooth as a mill pond, touched here and there with a glint of gold and on the extreme horizon against a background of opaline tints, Aurora gracefully courtsied to young Apollo. What a picture? It will remain with me as long as life shall last. Then right about face again, and fair Liberty, holding aloft her glowing torch, dawned upon my view and I knew that I had indeed arrived and was now of the blessed free.

I made my first obeisance to my adopted country and promised it as one promises a dying parent, that I would indeed be a true daughter, American from crown to sole, first, last, and all the time, true to the ideals of George Washington and his, compatriots; and swore then and there, even before I had set foot on shore, to uphold the Constitution in word and deed forever; and to live for the promotion of liberty even as the Revolutionary Fathers had done, no matter what the price is that I must pay.

This public-spirited attitude, this devotion to American principles are the inheritance of my American-born children; 38 years of unblemished citizenship on our part stands to the record of my family. Thousands of similar histories through the years have passed before me as it were in review. I have seen thousands of immigrants crowding to the rails of steamers as they came up the bay, whispering, shouting, "America, land of the free." These people believe in the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the United States Constitution just as I did. If I had to make my choice now, gentlemen, with question 24 to be answered and knowing as I do that I could not be false to my own conscience which tells me that violence is wrong in principle and disastrous in practice, I ask you gentlemen, what would be my decision?

Question 24, invalidating constitutional guarantees to which I pinned my faith, would be the cause of adverse decision on my part, the consequence would be America deprived of unimpeachable citizens as are my family.

Gentlemen, I come before you as a symbol. I beg you to give grave consideration to this question of barring from citizenship splendid men and women, who because of their unshakable belief in the moral and ethical verities could be relied upon nobly to uphold the principles upon which this great Nation was founded. I beg you to report this bill out of committee. I have faith that our Congress still stands true to the traditional American freedom of conscience of our forefathers.

I think Congress can be trusted to do what is right in this matter. I believe that they would by legislative action remedy the situation that permits the extraneous Constitution-violating question 24 to bar from citizenship applicants otherwise nobly qualified to join the ranks of the brave and free citizens of our great country.

To-day, gentlemen, I thank God that one of the blessed privileges under our Constitution is that we may advocate reforms and educate for laws calculated to sustain traditional Americanism of the patriots of 1776. That Americanism of post World War hysterical period must be looked to if America is to be preserved from the unrest so prevalent in the world at this time. To bear my part in that program is what my citizenship means to me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will now introduce Mr. Richard R. Wood.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. WOOD, 304 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA

Mr. CABLE. Whom do you represent?

Mr. Wood. I have been sent here by the representative meeting of the Society of Friends of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

Mr. CABLE. Do you live in Philadelphia?

Mr. WOOD. I live in Morristown, N. J., a suburb of Philadelphia. Besides representing the representative meeting of the Religious Society of Friends of Philadelphia and Vicinity, I also represent the Friends' joint committee on citizenship. I also am secretary of the peace committee of the Friends of Philadelphia and vicinity.

It seems to me that one point only is at issue in connection with these bills and other similar bills intended to make possible the naturalization of persons who, on conscientious grounds, refuse to take part in war. That one point is the question of policy: Is it to the advantage of the United States to admit such people to citizenship? It is my profound conviction that the answer should be in the affirmative.

It should be pointed out that in advocating the admission to citizenship of men and women who refuse, on conscientious grounds, to take part in war I am not advocating for them a privileged status as compared with other citizens. I fully recognize the right and duty of the Government to enforce its laws upon all citizens, and the corresponding duty of all citizens to obey the laws, except when those laws require of the citizens acts which violate their moral convictions.

But the historical fact can not be questioned that conflicts of judgment have arisen between the Government and more or less numerous groups of citizens as to the rightness of certain actions which the Government has required of its citizens. When such conflicts have arisen ver matters of moral importance, citizens have conscientiously disobeyed the behests of the Government and broke its laws. In the light of history we find that such citizens have made valuable contributions to the development of the most treasured traditions of this country and of its free institutions of which we are so proud.

One of my ancestors spent some time in prison during the occupation of Philadelphia by the British troops in the Revolutionary War because he had been furnishing valuable information to troops engaged in armed revolt against the government to which they owed allegiance. That such resistance against their government plored by their descendants is illustrated by the great preparations which have been made to celebrate the Bicentennial of George Washington, the leader of that movement of organized disobedience without which it is hard to see how this Nation could have come into existence.

William Penn, the founder of one of our great States, was repeatedly imprisoned for breaking, on conscientious grounds, the laws in force in his time regarding public worship. His insistence on his right and duty, as a morally responsible individual, to follow his own conscience when it came into conflict with the judgment of the Government is largely responsible for the religious and political liberty which our country now enjoys, and which is rightly recognized as the great heritage of the people of the United States.

These few illustrations show that conflicts between the consciences of citizens and the judgment of the Government have led in the past to developments, both of our Nation itself and of its most cherished traditions and institutions, which have amply justified those conscientiously objecting citizens for taking the positions they did. It is in this way that progress has come. It is because I regard the United States as a living and growing organism, and not as a mere dead shell that I believe it to be necessary for the continued welfare of our country that it continue to receive the help and stimulus to be obtained from conscientious men and women who may in the future find themselves in serious disagreement at some point with the Nation that they love.

I submit, therefore, that it is a bad and short-sighted policy, contrary to the permanent interest of the United States, to exact of applicants for citizenship a promise, in advance, of unqualified obedience. It deprives the Nation of precisely this stimulus to development that it has received from its rugged nonconformist patriots in the past. Moreover, such an exaction defeats its own ends. You can not make men patriotic by law any more than you can make them good by law. Insistence on such unqualified pledges of obedience tends to make the pledge of loyalty a mere perfunctory formula, to be gone through with thoughtlessly. Only men and women who are thoughtful and conscientious stop to consider what it means; these men and women, who are particularly desirable as citizens, may be debarred by the demand for such an unqualified pledge, while men and women less deeply concerned about their responsibilities as citizens find it no obstacle.

The extent to which the effective enforcement of laws depends on the conscious voluntary cooperation of responsible individual citizens is not always as fully appreciated as it should be. Without such conscious cooperation of the vast majority of the citizens, law enforcement becomes physically impossible. Take traffic lights as an example. Unless most of us cooperated, it would be impossible to enforce their directions; there would not be enough policemen. The traffic lights would be a menace, rather than a safeguard, unless very many citizens felt their individual responsibility for obeying them voluntarily.

The exaction of an unqualified pledge of obedience under all circumstances tends to bar from citizenship precisely the men and women who take most seriously the responsibility for their own conduct. It thus defeats the very aim of those who advocate it. It tends to undermine the self-responsibility of the citizens for their own conduct; to put the emphasis on enforcement by reducing the emphasis on responsibility for obedience. I think we have seen enough of the difficulty of enforcing laws for which considerable numbers of citizens feel no responsibility to agree that a formal loyalty to the Government gained at the sacrifice of the individual responsibility of the citizens is a weak thing to depend on.

Finally, the particular point raised in these bills, refusal on conscientious grounds to participate in war, is a point about which there is increasing concern among citizens of this country. I have mentioned William Penn and thus referred by inference to the Religious Society of Friends, whose members have since before the existence of the United States as a Nation generally refused to take

part in war. Their part in the founding and development of the Nation is known, and is regarded as important. Increasingly many men and women of many parts of our country's population are coming to regard participation in war as inconsistent with their deepest religious convictions. For example, the New York Times of January 22, 1932, reports a resolution adopted by the Ohio pastors' convention as follows:

We will never again sanction or participate in any war. We will not use our classrooms or pulpits as recruiting stations. We deplore the action of making military service, against conscience, a test of citizenship, and military training in college a requirement.

In any dilemma of loyalty to country or to Christ we will choose to follow Christ.

When valued native-born citizens feel this way, it is inconsistent, and, I believe, short-sighted,, to refuse citizenship to properly qualified applicants who agree with them.

I therefore feel that the aims sought by these bills should be realized, in the best interests of the United States. I hope that this change in our national policy will be made because:

To demand an unqualified pledge of obedience to the Government defeats its own end, and undermines the sense of individual responsibility which is the foundation of the maintenance of laws.

It goes counter to the history of the country, founded in large part by nonconformists and dissenters and established by men who would not yield their consciences to the keeping of any earthly

power.

It deprives the Nation of the stimulus and aid to further progress which it can obtain from men and women conscientious enough to follow their convictions when they find themselves in disagreement with the Government on some morally important point. Our present policy thus goes counter to the way in which our most cherished liberties were won. The independent, responsible consciences of our citizens and prospective citizens are our greatest national asset, to be cherished in the interest of the Nation and at the behest of patriotism.

Mr. CABLE. There is one question that I would like to ask. Do you believe that peace in the United States would be promoted by admitting into the United States an unlimited number of those from foreign countries who are opposed to war?

Mr. Wood. I believe that an attitude of mind that is represented by a public support for the policy that I have advocated here would be helpful to the promotion of peace here and elsewhere.

Mr. CABLE. Would it promote that to bring to this country people of that type?

Mr. WOOD. I believe it is recognized that the rights of other people to disagree with me or I with them is an attitude of mind which is helpful to the maintenance of peace and also the national welfare; and I think that our history shows that.

Mr. JENKINS. I have only the greatest respect for your organization and your people. But I am just wondering whether you are taking part in this movement because you have been asked to or because in some respect it is in line with your belief, or whether you have ever been a real promoter in this movement.

111460-32-5