« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Mr. Wood. Are you talking about me personally or my organization?
Mr. JENKINS. I am talking about your organization. Has your organization been a pioneer in this, or are you just falling in line because it is something that appeals to you?
Mr. Wood. I am afraid that we can hardly claim credit of being pioneers. But we have ever since this question has been up, had public discussion at least five or six times about it. We have been very much concerned about it, and have done what we could to promote such a policy as I am advocating here.
Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask you one question. Do you believe that an alien about to be sworn in as a citizen of the United States should take an oath of any kind, some kind of an oath?
Mr. Wood. Well, in keeping with the historical position of the Society of Friends, I would say " affirmation" rather than “oath."
Mr. JOHNSON. What would you have him affirm? Let us say that a man is about to become a citizen by naturalization. What should he affirm? What should he believe in?
Mr. Wood. As I understand it, sir, the difficulty is not with a particular form, but about trying to prescribe too much in detail for situations which may come up in the hypothetical future. It is over that difficulty that it seems to me we have been locked to-day.
Mr. Johnson. În your statement, particularly the first part of it, I got the impression that you were not satisfied with the present oath.
Mr. Wood. There is nothing the matter with the present oath if it is not interpreted in too hypothetical a way.
Mr. JOHNSON. Where do you think we are going if you are going to begin to qualify it and begin to eliminate words from the oath?
Mr. Wood. I was not suggesting waiving the oath, sir. I was just simply suggesting that historical right that has been all-important, that loyal citizens have in the past disagreed with their Government and had to act on that disagreement; and that history shows that they have made contributions
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that applies to the citizens. Can't we get down to the man who is trying to be a citizen by naturalization ? What should he say or do?
Mr. Wood. I see no objection whatever to the affirmation to defend and support the Constitution. That is essentially the present words. I can not quote them. I think that is entirely constitutional if it is properly interpreted.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I want to call now upon Mr. William Bailie, of Boston, Mass.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BAILIE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Mr. BAILIE. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I come here
Mr. CABLE. Will you tell us who you are and just whom you represent?
Mr. BAILIE. I was just beginning to do so, Mr. Congressman.
I come here because I am interested in this matter, and because I am a member of the Boston Committee in Support of the Griffin bill, what we know as the Griffin bill.
Perhaps it would be well for your information to take, as I have taken, a few names at random from this committee; and tell you who they are and who it is that I am attempting here to represent.
The first name on my list is William J. Batch, one of the most distinguished editors in the United States, who has been managing editor and editorial writer for the Christian Science Monitor, an internationally known newspaper. I am not a Christian Scientist by long shot.
Mr. CABLE. You haven't told us yet who you are and what your business is.
Mr. BAILIE. I am a furniture manufacturer of Boston.
Mr. BAILIE. The next name on my list is Bishop William F. Anderson, of the Methodist Church, a man who is known wherever methodism is known in this country.
Another name on my list is that of Alice Stone Blackwell. I believe that name is known to every woman's organization in the United States. It is a historical name. Her mother was a very historical person-Alice Stone.
The next on the list is Robert C. Dexter. He is a high official of the American Unitarian Association, a minister of that church, and is well known in New England.
Next on my list is Dr. Albert C. Duffenbach. Doctor Duffenbach is the well-known editor of the Christian Register, a Unitarian publication, and, as I understand it, the official newspaper of the Unitarian Church of America. He is also the pastor of one of the largest Unitarian congregations in Boston.
Next on my list is Dr. Rabbi Harry Levi. He is, without question, the best known and, I think, the most distinguished member of the Hebrew community in New England.
Furthermore, I have Dr. Harold Marshall. Dr. Harold Marshall has been minister of the Universalist Church as long as I have known him. For several years he has been president of the publication house of the Universalist Religion; that is, for the Nation.
There is another name here, that of Dr. E. Talmadge Root, who is a Congregationalist minister. He is the secretary of the Boston Federation of Churches, which embraces all Protestant denominations.
Mr. CABLE. Do you believe in our present form of government, Mr. Bailie?
Mr. BAILIE. Yes.
I have one more name that I want to mention. That is Mr. John F. Brewers, who is a banker in Boston, who has devoted practically the whole of his life to what is known as good work. He has been head of our welfare society, which used to be a charitable organization. He is on all kinds of committees where service is required for the general good of the community. He is a man that is very well known in Boston. But he is not in politics, and therefore he has not got the national reputation that a man in politics might have, But in New England he is well known.
Those are the kind of men that I represent.
Mr. BAILIE. Yes. I belong to the Boston committee, and I am here as a representative of the Boston committee.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the title of that committee.?
Mr. BAILIE. The Boston committee in support of the Griffin bill, that is, House bill No. 297.
Mr. JOHNSON. How long has the Boston committee been organized ?
Mr. Bailie. It was organized when this bill came up last year, before it was brought before your committee. I followed those hearings, and I am quite familiar with them.
Mr. JOHNSON. Before the bill was introduced ?
Mr. BAILIE. I don't know. I have no statistics on the subject. But I will leave the answer to Mr. Griffin.
Mr. JOHNSON. It could not be. I will ask you if it was not organized in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rhoda Swimmer.
Mr. BAILIE. I don't think the Griffin bill was before this committee at that time.
Mr. Johnson. Was your committee organized before or after the Griffin bill was introduced ?
Mr. BAILIE. I am not quite clear, but it was developed solely to support the bill that was brought in here last year by Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Johnson. There are many more in your organization than the list of names that you read, aren't there?
Mr. BAILIE. I just took a few at random. I didn't want to take up your time with that kind of thing.
Mr. JOHNSON. What is the membership of your committee in round numbers?
Mr. BAILIE. I could not give you that. I am not the secretary nor the organizer of the committee.
Mr. JOHNSON. You can say whether it is fifty or a hundred, can't you?
Mr. BAILIE. It would be more than a hundred. I know that.
Mr. Johnson. I am asking him. You say it is more than a hundred ?
Mr. BAILIE. I don't know the exact number. I assume that it is more than 100.
Mr. JOHNSON. Were you born in the United States?
Mr. BAILIE. I was not; and for that reason I think I am privileged to come before this body. Forty years ago I came here from Eng. land.
In my earlier days I have been a close student of American affairs. I had read the history of the Presidents and of their careers. I had read the history of the Revolution. I had been fed on Thomas Brice's American Commonwealth; and I had relatives in this country; and my ambition from early boyhood was to get away from a land where a king or a queen ruled, and where we had lords and dukes. It was my idea to come here as a boy. And when I was quite young, a little over 20, I came here, and I have lived in Boston ever since.
Mr. JOHNSON. You became naturalized in your own right?
Mr. BAILIE. I was naturalized in my own right in the Federal court in Boston considerably more than 30 years ago.
Mr. CABLE. You are an author as well as a furniture manufacturer, aren't you?
Mr. "BAILIE. I have been a furniture manufacturer all my life.
Mr. CABLE. Haven't you written any books!
Mr. CABLE. Didn't you write a book on the first American anarchist! Mr. BAILIE. Yes. I wish you had that here. I think it would
Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to read it. The CHAIRMAN. Maybe he would send us a copy. Mr. BAILIE. If you want to read it, it is in the Congressional Library. It has been in there for over 25 years.
Mr. JOHNSON. I will read it. You have made a pretty good study of the subject, have you? Mr. BAILIE. I made a study in that particular book of all these different communities that were founded in the middle part of the nineteenth century in this country by such men as Robert Owen, a Scotch manufacturer who came over here.
Mr. JOHNSON. Are you a communist?
Mr. BAILIE. I went through all the different communities. I was a student, as I have been all my life, a student of sociological conditions.
In those days I had more time. Since then I have had to devote practically all of my time to my business. Therefore I have not continued to write books.
Mr. Dies. Are you a communist!
Mr. BAILIE. I am not. That is why I wish I could show you gentlemen the book that has been mentioned, because that would prove that I am an anticommunist and an antisocialist.
Mr. JENKINS. What books have you written?
Mr. BAILIE. I haven't written any other books. I have written occasional articles in newspapers on current subjects. But I am not a member of any communist or social or other radical organization.
I am vice president of the Boston Ethical Society; and I have been connected with the Unitarian Church most of my life. I am a member of an organization that is international in scope, and one of the greatest, I think, organizations for peace in the world. You probably know what I refer to.
Mr. JENKINS. What is it?
So I don't think I can be accused with any degree of truthfulness of being a radical or red.
The CHAIRMAN. We are convinced of that. Just proceed with your statement in regard to the bill.
Mr. BAILIE. I am not going to present the political arguments in this case, nor the legal, nor the religious, nor, as it was mentioned here at another point, the philosophical. But I come here, besides representing these distinguished men in Boston, representing myself. And I think, as you have not had an alien or one who has been an alien, before you, it might be worth your while to get hold of the viewpoint of one who was an alien, and who came here, as I did, in all faith in the greatness of this country and in its institutions. ... Mr. JOHNSON. We don't want to get the record wrong. We heard as a witness, just a few minutes ago, a brilliant young lady, who described in a most tearful way her departure from England.
Mr. BAILIE. She almost took the wind out of my sails.
Mr. Johnson. You must not overlook her, Mr. BAILIE. I wouldn't think of doing that. It was very beautiful, Mr. JOHNSON. The best speech we had this afternoon. Mr. BAILIE. I admit it. But still it is well for you gentlemen in considering this particular bill now to have the view point of the alien.
Mr. Johnson. Let us talk about an alien who is getting to our shores.
The CHAIRMAN. No. Let us talk about the alien who is in this country and desires to become a citizen.
Mr. JOHNSON. All right.
Mr. BAILIE. I have had a great deal of opposition, and I read the opposition in the last year's hearings; and it seems to me that it is all based on fear-fear that those aliens are going to be an enemy of this country.
Mr. JOHNSON. Not at all.
I am one of those who have faith in the institutions of this country. I don't believe that any alien who has ever come in here can upset the institutions or the principles of this country. I also believe that nine-tenths of the aliens who come here and apply for citizenship are honest people who want to become good citizens.
Mr. CABLE. I am glad you put that in the record.
Mr. BAILIE. Furthermore, I believe that it is not fair to those aliens who come here with good intenations to make them take a position and swear to an oath and put a different obligation upon them than what is put upon the citizen of this country who is not an alien. I think that whatever are the duties and the obligations of citizenship to those who were born here and therefore are natives, who are citizens without having to be sworn in as such and naturalized, that the naturalized citizen should be asked to assume all those obligations and no more. I think that is only a matter of justice.
It is only since this red scare has come up within a few years that the belief has come up that we are in danger of all the troubles of Europe, revolution, and what is going on in Russia; the fear that the people who come in here will upset our institutions.
I have, as I say, entire faith in our institutions. I am not an alarmist, and I have no fear. I have met these aliens. I have been an employer of labor for 30 and more years; and I have been forced to employ men who have come from these various countries; and I have never yet found one who has not become a good citizen.
Now, that is my point of view; and I would like to disabuse your minds of this fear of the alien. There is nothing to fear about the alien.
I don't believe you gentlemen want to adopt the principles and practices of Mussolini and Stalin. They are the ones who are trying to force something onto their own people against their will.
I think that if you leave the situation open, and ask your alien if he wants to get the privilege of naturalization and of citizenship, and to assume all the obligations which the citizen already assumes.
I would like to go further than that, Mr. Johnson, if you will allow me to speak without interruption. I am not a public speaker. I do not make public speeches. If you will let me finish my statement, I will be glad to answer your question.