Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. JOHNSON. I just want to say this. The United States does not want to force citizenship upon any person who comes to its shores.

Mr. BAILIE. It is in the interest of that person coming to these shores to want citizenship. It is in the interest of the whole community and the whole society to have good men become citizens.

Mr. CABLE. I think we ought to permit him to make a statement without any interruptions.

Mr. BAILIE. That is all I ask for. I didn't intend to take much time. But I think, coming as I do, with 40 years' residence in this country and a record of work behind me and citizenship, that the point of view of such a one is perhaps worth considering.

I feel that there is no danger at all in these aliens. I never saw any instance of danger from these so-called aliens who want to be citizens.

It has been expressed here to-day sometimes a fear that this bill would permit some one to slip in and be dangerous; that some of these people would slip in here if we didn't put this clause up against them, this question 24, I believe it is called. But I think that if you believe that is the right thing to do, you must also believe that that is a right question to put before every citizen of this country before you allow him the privileges of citizenship. I think that is only a matter of justice.

But I don't believe it is necessary, and I can not understand why intelligent men who know all about conditions in this country think that that is necessary—to ask every alien coming here, desiring citizenship, if he can bear arms.

I was too old in the war time to serve, but I had a boy 21 years of age. He enlisted three months before the act was passed, the compulsory enlistment act. He went across overseas and stayed until the end of the war and came back with a good record. That is my own family.

I am not in sympathy with these radical people just because I wrote a historical book which has no relation to these “red” things that you are talking about. My feeling is simply that we do not have to have any fear of the alien; and that, anyway, you are not going to help matters by putting in this little clause that seems to have been put in by the militarists for some reasons of their own.

Another thing, we have heard a lot about pacifists. I am not a pacifist in any sense that some people are here. I don't believe in war, and I hope that sometime the human race will outlive war. But we haven't got there yet.

But there is no danger, so far as I can see, in the world of any scarcity of cannon fodder no matter how many aliens you let in. We don't allow many of them now. We have nearly 120,000,000 people here. The proportion of aliens here is a very small one compared with the others. Every year the danger of any large body of aliens who might be inimical to our institutions getting in here grows less and less.

Mr. GREEN. In that connection I would like to ask
The CHAIRMAN. We would like to let him finish his statement first.

Mr. BAILIE. I have finished my statement now. If there is any question, I would be glad to answer it. I can stop now.

Mr. GREEN. In that connection, I am willing and desirous to vote to stop all immigration to our country. I want to know if you

The CHAIRMAN. That is beyond the question. We are dealing here with the Griffin bill, and I don't want any other question brought up.

I want to confine this hearing strictly to the Griffin bill.

Mr. BAILIE. If you wish me to answer your question, Mr. Congressman, I will be glad to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. If any questions are asked pertaining to the Griffin bill, you may answer them.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will now introduce Mr. Leif.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED LEIF, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. CABLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one suggestion.. I think that if these witnesses will tell us what their connection is with various societies and organizations before they begin to give their statement, it would be helpful.

Mr. LEIF. I am a writer. My list of connections is very brief. In fact, it consists of just one. It is my connection with the Griffin bill committee.

I became interested in that bill, if you care to know, when I was compiling Dissenting Opinions of Justice Holmes, a book published Mr. JOHNSON. What is your name, sir? Mr. LEIF. Alfred Leif. Mr. JOHNSON. And you live where ! Mr. LEIF. New York. Mr. JOHNSON. What is your address? Mr. LEIF. No. 135 West Seventy-ninth Street. Mr. Johnson. What is your business? Mr. LEIF. I am a writer.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you an original writer or do you write at the dictation of others?

Mr. LEIF. Well, I am an original writer and compiler. Mr. JOHNSON. Have you published some books! Mr. LEIF. Three books. Mr. JOHNSON. What are they? Mr. LEIF. One is Dissenting Opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes. The second one is Social and Economic Views of Mr. Justice Brandeis. The third is Representative Opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes.

Let me say here that while I was working on the opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Johnson. No. We must get you qualified first. You are a citizen of the United States?

Mr. LEIF. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Were you born in the United States!
Mr. LEIF. Yes, sir.
Mr. JOHNSON. Now, go ahead.

Mr. LEIF. I became interested in the Griffin bill through the inclusion of the Rosika Schwimmer decision in the Dissenting Opinions of Justice Holmes.

Only yesterday I spoke to Justice Holmes about this matter of the naturalization of people opposed to war; and I told him that the people who are opposed to the Griffin bill are afraid that we will be letting in aliens who will undermine the foundation of the

[ocr errors]

Government; and he laughed; he chuckled. He said, “I never could take the objection seriously.” That is from Justice Holmes.

I use him as a starting point because my testimony to-day is intended to indicate, or, rather, to alleviate any apprehension you may have as to the character of the people supporting the Griffin bili. To my mind they represent the finest types in America, the finest minds (I am not talking about myself), people who are contributing to the culture of this country, people who mean something to the furtherance of art and science and the law.

I have a letter here, for instance, from Dr. Mary E. Woolley, of the Geneva disarmament delegation and president of the Mount Holyoke College. She wrote me, “I am in favor of the amendment of the naturalization laws introduced by Congressman Griffin.”

This morning the eloquent speaker, Prof. Jerome Davis, referred to Dean Charles E. Clark, dean of the law school at Yale College. He is supporting this bill. I would like to read his letter. [Reading :)

JANUARY 23, 1932. Hon. ANTHONY J. GRIFFIN.

MY DEAR SIR: I write to express support of H. R. 298, which, as I understand it, amends the naturalization act to make it possible to admit to citizenship applicants such as the Rev. Douglas C. Macintosh, professor in the Yale Divinity School, who was recently excluded from citizenship because of his conscientious scruples as to promising to support all wars. I represented Doctor Macintosh before the district court and also was on the brief prepared by the Hon. John W. Davis and his associates in the appeals to the circuit court of appeals and the United States Supreme Court.

It will be recalled that the district court refused citizenship to Doctor Macintosh; that its decision was unanimously reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but was restored by a five-to-four decision of the United States Supreme Court. A majority of all the judges in all the courts who passed upon Doctor Macintosh's case, viz, seven as against six, believed he was entitled to citizenship.

I was impressed at the hearing by the purely academic nature of the issue which the Government forced upon Doctor Macintosh and which had the effect of compelling him either to salve his conscience or to take a position which led to his rejection. Under hardly conceivable circumstances would Doctor Macintosh be called upon to bear arms, and yet he was pressed to make a commitment and required of the natural-born citizen.

Furthermore, I am convinced that whether we agree with Doctor Macintosh's position concerning war or not, there are fundamental issues affecting all of us who have any convictions at all as to which we should feel compelled to decline to agree to all governmental action. Such issues, for example, may concern the home and family relations, which have been the subject in other countries of regulations to which not all people can submit. Of course, our Government has not seen fit to regulate such matters and as a practical thing no such issue is likely to come before us. The matter is, however, no more academic than that of expecting a clergyman beyond the draft age to promise to engage in potential future wars. In other words, Doctor Macintosh did what all of us with spirit at all must do as to issues which affect us most vitally.

The only way to avoid such a dilemma is to have an easy-going conscience, or, in other words, to be less desirable as a man and as a citizen than the person who is to be excluded because of his sincerity. This seems to me a dilemma which no government ought to present to its prospective citizens and I feel that a change in the law, as finally declared by a bare majority of the Supreme Court against the powerful dissent of the Chief Justice and the unanimous opinion of one of the strongest courts of the country, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit, should be made. Very truly yours,

CHARLES E. CLARK, Dean.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. You have similar letters there, I see. We are getting rather short of time, so I think it would be better if you do not read all of them now. It is probably purely cumulative evidence. You may file those for the record and the committee will bear them in mind. You may file any documents that you want and we will read them later.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I was just going to suggest that. If Mr. Leif would care to mention their names now it might be illuminating. Then he can leave the letters to go in the record. (See p. —.)

Mr. LEIF. I hope you gentlemen will have the patience to read the record and see with what forceful language these arguments are made.

I will give a list of the writers of these letters:
Elmer Rice, famous playwright and author of Street Scenes.
Fannie Hurst, famous author.
Robert L. Hale, professor of law at Columbia University.

Oswald Garrison Villard, jr., editor of The Nation, one of the most influential organs looking for liberation of the spirit and enlargement of American life.

Felix Frankfurter, professor of law at Harvard University.
William Floyd, director of Peace Patriots.
Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, of New York.

Prof. James P. Gifford, assistant to the dean, school of law, Columbia University, a man who was in the Army.

Prof. Jesse H. Holmes, of the department of philosophy, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.

Mrs. Jessie Woodrow Sayre, daughter of the late President, who uses very forceful language.

Prof. Milton Handler, of the law school of Columbia University. Prof. Durant Drake, professor of ethics, Vassar College.

Elaine Goodale Eastman, chairman of the Northampton group, Griffin bill committee.

S. Ralph Harlow, professor in the department of religion and biblical literature, Smith College.

Prof. W. A. Neilson, president of Smith College. Prof. Hornell Hart, of Bryn Mawr College. And I have here a very imposing argument from Mr. Harold Fields, executive director of the National League for American Citizenship:

The originals of all of these are with the Griffin bill committee.

Then there is Prof. Edwin W. Patterson, of the school of law of Columbia University. Zona Gale Breese, Portage, Wis.

Prof. Harold D. Lasswell, of the department of political science of the University of Chicago.

There is Doctor Dexter, whose name has already been mentioned.
Prof. John Hanns, school of law, Columbia University.
A reference by the Salem Quarterly Meeting of Friends in Boston.

One from Miss Dorothy Detzer, executive secretary of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

There is one from Edward Thomas, New York lawyer.
There is one from Paul Jones, professor at Antioch College.

[ocr errors]

We have a number of letters from persons in Florida, Mr. Green. There is one from Mr. George H. Badger, First Unitarian Church of Orlando, Fla.

Mr. JOHNSON. Are they protesting against the bill?
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is an indorsement. These are for the bill.

Mr. LEIF. There is one from Prof. Will S. Munroe, of the State Normal School of Montclair, N. J.

Mr. FREE. Have you any there from California
Mr. LEIF, Well, Doctor Einstein is in California.

in California. He couldn't send one because under our laws he could never be made a citizen if this question is left in. This may be only obiter dictu, but I am sure that you would consider Alfred Einstein a worthy citizen of the United States; I mean a man worthy of citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you very many of them? You had better file them and we will look at them later.

Mr. CABLE. The purpose of this bill is to promote pacifists coming into the United States, isn't it?

Mr. LEIF. No. It is not. It does not invite pacifists to come to the United States.

Mr. CABLE. In this circular that you sent to us, this letter, you use the language, “ To amend the law so that pacifist applicants should be granted citizenship.” What did you mean when you

used the words " pacifists applicants”!

Mr. LEIF. Persons opposed to war.

If you were familiar with all the peace movements you would find that there are 99 kinds of pacifists. There was the American Peace Society, founded in 1815 by William H. Dodge, ancestor of the famous Cleveland William H. Dodge who founded the New York Peace Society, which was later incorporated in the American Peace Society. You would not call them 100 per cent pacifists.

Mr. CABLE. I was just asking as to the purpose of this bill. According to your construction it would permit pacifists to come in this country. I asked you what you meant in this circular by saying that this bill was to promote pacifist applicants being granted citizenship.

Mr. LEIF. People who are opposed to war.

Mr. CABLE. Then the purpose of this bill, as you construe it, is to promote pacifists coming here?

Nr. LEIF. Well, yes. Those who are opposed to bearing arms. Mr. GRIFFIN. That is one of the purposes of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It is dealing with aliens in the United States who want to become citizens?

Mr. LEIF. Yes. Not with those who want to come in the country.

The CHAIRMAN. And who by reason of certain religious ideas are objecting to paragraph 24 of the present law. Is that it?

Mr. LEIF. Yes.

Mr. CABLE. Would you make any change in the oath that they are required to take!

Mr. LEIF. Absolutely not.
Mr. CABLE. Only to strike out question 24?

Mr. LEIF. Yes. Because, as I conceive it, and as Chief Justice Hughes conceives it, that is an interpretation of the oath made by the Naturalization Bureau without warrant. There is nothing in the naturalization law which permits such a question. There is

« ÎnapoiContinuați »