This platform which was accepted by the League, contains the following items:

First, work based on findings of Women's International League, international congress in Dublin.

Second, introduction of bills in line with Women's International League policies in Congress and also in various State legislatures for the letter to memoralize Congress.

Third, work against national defense act, in cooperation with committee on militarism in education.

Fourth, work against citizens military training camps.

Fifth, work against military training in schools and colleges. Support Welch bill.

Sixth, work against conscription bills, and so on.

That is the policy of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Now the women's slacker oath which I mentioned a few minutes ago includes the following:

We have pledged ourselves not to give you our children; not to encourage or nurse your soldiers; not to knit a sock or roll a bandage or drive a truck or make a war pledge or buy a bond.

That is the oath which the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom advocates should be taken by every woman and Madame Schwimmer, who is with us, advocates that, and is the leading advocate of the women's slacker oath, she who has a cosmic sense of a universal existence. The league puts that in as one of their principles.

Now by reference to the testimony of last year, you will find that, and also the relationship of this league to communist activities, set forth in the testimony. There is no question where they stand on communism, and no question where they stand on pacifism, and those two things frequently go together.

The National Council for Prevention of War, which is in this city, stands side by side with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom in these things. The recognition of Soviet Russia-which is becoming one of the greatest war machines to-day-and at the same time the destruction of national defense and the elimination of the Navy; all of those things go together in their program.

Now with reference to the Supreme Court decision: A statement was made yesterday by Mr. Davis that the decision of the Supreme Court and the announcement of the justice or the justices in rendering the opinion, was but the interpretation of the existing law. Without attempting to read that decision to you, as you gentlemen no doubt are quite familiar with it, I say that the justices who rendered that opinion in speaking of the requirement on the part of citizens to defend the country with arms, if necessary were announcing the basic principles upon which the decision was founded, and it can not be said that they were simply giving an interpretation of the law regarding naturalization. It is true that this case went up to the Supreme Court as a result of the application of Madame Schwimmer and that it did interpret the naturalization law, but when the justices made the statement that the defense of the country with arms, if necessary, was a fundamental obligation of citizenship, the court did not say that solely in connection with the interpretation

of the law, but announced it as a fundamental principle upon which such decisions should be based.

Now if the committee please, I want to bring to you something about the Kellogg peace pact. It seems to be the bible of the pacifists, of every person who advocates pacifist principles, for they claim that the Kellogg peace pact has eliminated war, that war has been renounced. That is a theory which has been propagandized to the people of this country; that the provisions of the Kellogg peace pact have brought about the renunciation of war, the elimination of war, as a means of settling international disputes. I doubt if any greater or more serious fraud has ever been practiced upon the public.

The Kellogg peace pact does not renounce war. When the Kellogg peace pact was first suggested France made an objection to the draft, which was in substantially the present form. The third paragraph was to have to do with the renunciation of war, the elimination of war as a means of settling international disputes. France objected to it and said: There is, however, a situation of fact to which my Government has requested me to draw your particular

attention.

The American Government can not be unaware of the fact that a great majority of the powers of the world, and among them most of the principal powers, are making the organization and strengthening of peace the object of common efforts carried on within the framework of the League of Nations. They are already bound to one another by a covenant placing them under reciprocal obligations, as well by agreements such as those signed at Locarno in October, 1925, or by international conventions relative to guarantees of neutrality, all of which engagements impose upon them duties which they can not contravene.

It was suggested by France at that time that there be inserted in the Kellogg peace pact a provision which would make reservations possible, because, as they said, they were already bound to one another by the covenant placing them under reciprocal obligations. All of this had been taken into consideration and these matters had been discussed thoroughly before the Kellogg peace pact was ever suggested. But the United States was apparently unwilling to do that.

So, correspondence was entered into. Mr. Kellogg made the suggestion and the correspondence was entered into between different countries. Now, look at the volume which contains that correspondence. It takes a whole book, while the Kellogg peace pact is simply a pamphlet of two pages; that is all. When you go to the State Department and ask for the Kellogg peace pact they will give you a pamphlet of two pages; that is all. Those two pages right here [indicating] are the Kellogg peace pact, but here is the correspondence; it takes a book to cover the correspondence explaining the reservations to the Kellogg peace pact. Each nation wrote a letter setting forth their exceptions to the terms of the Kellogg peace pact; and you can find that by reference to this volume. They were unwilling to say they would renounce war. You can see that it does not apply to self-defense; it does not apply to any nations that break this treaty; it does not apply to the execution of obligations under the league covenant; it does not apply to the Locarno treaty; and it does not apply to the French alliances.

Now, if you can possibly find any war to which those reservations do not apply, I do not know about what it would be. To-day any

nation, except the United States, signatory to the Kellogg peace pact, can find a way to go to war.

Now, I am taking a little time, if the committee please, for the reason that the Kellogg peace pact, as I said, is used as a basis of argument by pacifists and idealists, who ask, "Why do we need to have national defense, armies, or navies?" That is the question that we are getting on all occasions, and the Kellogg peace pact is the basis of their contention.

Now, let us refer just a moment to the League of Nations

The CHAIRMAN. Before you get to that, I understand it is your position that the Kellogg peace pact is just a lot of ifs and ands.

Mr. BURTON. Whereas, ifs and ands, and so forth. It contains enough whereases to make quite a volume.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you think that Japan violated that peace pact by its recent operations?

Mr. BURTON. Japan has not violated the Kellogg peace pact if her nationals were attacked; she can come in under the first exception, the exception relating to self-defense, or under the second section. Japan can protect their nationals, if China had attacked her nationals, and they were unprotected.

Now, coming to the League of Nations' covenant. Section 16 of the covenant of the League of Nations provides that in the event of war the council shall call upon the nations to refer the matter to the council, that is, if the nations have a quarrel, I should have said, they are required to refer that quarrel to the council of the league. And the council is required to attempt to settle the difficulties; but failing to do that, and one nation goes to war, that nation shall be deemed to have declared war against all other nations in the league, some 59 or more at this time.

Furthermore, the council of the league is authorized to designate what shall be contributed in the way of navy, air, and land forces, and so forth, by the various members of the league, to form an international army and navy to suppress that nation which has declared war against one of its members.

I know no better example of what can occur than the situation existing between Japan and Cuba. Under the Platt amendment Cuba is not permitted to enter into a treaty permitting colonization of a foreign nation, but Cuba entered into such a treaty with Japan. Now, if we have any controversy with Japan about that, under section 17 of the league covenant, even though we are not a member of the League of Nations, we will be invited to submit the dispute to the council of the League of Nations and if we should refuse to do what they say and attempt to assert our rights against Japan, we, under the league covenant, would be put in the position of having declared war against all the nations in the league. We would not only then have Japan as an enemy but the rest of the world, because that is what the league covenant provides.

That being the case, it is very easy, I think, for the members of the committee to see that war can happen under the league covenant and therefore the Kellogg peace pact fails utterly in what is claimed for it. In addition to that

Mr. SCHNEIDER (interposing). In that event there has been a violation of the League of Nations covenant. Do you think Japan has violated those covenants?

Mr. BURTON. If she is the aggressor, provided the first exception does not apply; that is, that her nationals have been attacked and require the protection of their country.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But that must be settled as between the parties, without resorting to arms.

Mr. BURTON. Quite so. Under the Kellogg peace pact and the League of Nations; of course, Japan and China have been invited to settle their disputes but Japan has declined to do so.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. She has?

Mr. BURTON. She has; yes. Now, section 16 should be applied according to the provisions of the covenant.

Now, pursuant to the provisions of article 16, if the league council had done what the league covenant required it to do, it would have done just that, but it did not do it. Instead it sent a commission to Manchuria.

Now, I want to read to the committee, article 17, as follows:

In the event of a dispute between a member of the league and a State which is not a member of the league, or between States not members of the league, the State or States not members of the league shall be invited to accept the obligations of membership in the league for the purpose of such disputes upon such conditions as the council may deem just.

If a State so invited shall refuse to accept the obligations of membership in the league for the purpose of such dispute, and shall resort to arms against a member of the league, the provisions of article 16 shall be applicable as against the State taking such action.

Now, as I have just read to you, the council may call upon the other nations to form an international army and navy to protect the covenants of the league, so that if the United States, although not a member of the league, should resort to armies to protect its rights, the council can form an international army and navy, made up from the various countries of the world, and attack the United States, and that is excepted from the Kellogg peace pact, if you please.

I have one more thing. Under the provisions of article 20 of the league covenant, it was impossible for members of the league, if they had any regard for their international obligations, to enter into the Kellogg peace pact without making the necessary reservations to enable them to wage war under the league covenant.

Mr. CABLE. Just one question, if you please. The Constitution provides that Congress is limited to establishing uniform rules on naturalization. Have you considered whether these two bills are Constitutional or not?

Mr. BURTON. As to that question, I would say that if this resolution is reported, it would be aiding a particular class, those who refuse to take up arms for either religious or, conscientious reasons. Then, I would say, it is violating the Constitution for the reason that it becomes class legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Call your next witness.

Mr. LLOYD. I will call Colonel J. T. Taylor, of the American Legion.

STATEMENT OF COL. J. T. TAYLOR, OF THE AMERICAN LEGION

Colonel TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, is the committee at the same considering H. J. Res. 255 that was put in by Mr. Dies on this subject?

The CHAIRMAN. No; we are just considering the Griffin bill. What does that do?

Colonel TAYLOR. It is in conformance to a resolution adopted at the Detroit convention covering a point that was raised here yesterday, to wit, that, if there is any doubt in the minds of the people about the Supreme Court decision, that, instead of amending the law to permit these aliens to come into the country, the law should be amended so as to strengthen the Department of Labor and, in specific language, prevent them from coming into the country. The CHAIRMAN. That has no bearing upon this.

Colonel TAYLOR. Yes; exactly. Our resolution, adopted at the Detroit convention, reads as follows:

Be it resolved by the American Legion in thirteenth national convention assembled, That we memorialize the United States Congress to amend the naturalization laws to specifically require that all applicants for citizenship be required to promise under oath that they will bear arms in defense of this country as a condition of the grant of naturalization; and be it further

Resolved, That the national legislative committee make this a major objective in its legislative program.

I think that Mr. Dies put that resolution in.

This is, of course, a question that has been up before the Legion for a very long time.

At the Boston convention, a year before, they adopted the following resolution :

Resolved, That we believe American citizenship is a privilege to be conferred only upon those who wholly accept the responsibility involved, and not upon those who demand or propose special terms; and consequently we believe that no person should be admitted to citizenship in our United States who is unwilling to take an unqualified oath of allegiance to our Government.

It will be seen, therefore, that the American Legion has given consideration to the responsibilities of American citizenship in its national convention held in Boston 18 months ago and its national convention held in Detroit last September. On both these occasions the more than 1,000 delegates to the convention went on record unanimously as opposing the naturalization of any alien who declined to wholly accept the responsibilities involved in American citizenship and to require that all applicants for citizenship promise under oath"they will bear arms in defense of this country," as a condition of the grant of naturalization.

The Legion does not believe that naturalization is the inherent right of an alien, to be consummated by the United States upon such terms as an alien may desire to dictate.

On the contrary, the Legion believes that the granting of American citizenship to an alien is a privilege which the conduct and attitude of the alien should merit. Furthermore, the Legion believes that . the United States has a right to select the type of person it desires to become a member of our great national family, for once the status of citizenship is conferred upon an alien, that former alien has equal standing before the law with those citizens whose ancestors came to