To whom it may concern:

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., January 18, 1928.

This is to certify that I have been attending to Mr. Hong Sic Poy recently at the Park Sanitorium, and I have come to the conclusion that he is afflicted with a mental ailment called dementia præcox.

The exact cause of this condition is not very well understood. However, heredity has been found to play a large part in this disease and emotional disturbances such as seduction or desertion have not infrequently brought on attacks of the disease in individuals who have never shown any signs of mental derangement in the past, and who have been perfectly capable in securing an education and means of livelihood.

Very truly yours,

J. H. HALL, M. D.

Mr. FUNG. There are four types of hardships suffered by the American citizens of Chinese descent. There are those American citizens of Chinese descent who have wives in China and they are unable to bring them into this country on account of section 13, paragraph (c), of the act of 1924. Second, there are those American citizens of Chinese descent in the United States who desire to get married but are unable to do so on account of the scarcity of Chinese females within the United States. They are therefore forced to live a life of celibacy. Third, there are those Chinese of American citizenship who have alien wives temporarily admitted into the United States after July 1, 1924, and these wives are admitted under bond. They are now facing deportation unless Congress does something favorable for them.

Mr. Box. How many of them are in that condition?

Mr. FUNG. There are 30 cases, including those that have arrived at San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and Boston. They are admitted temporarily under bond.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. How many Chinese-American citizens have wives in foreign countries? Have you an approximate idea as to that? Mr. FUNG. We have no census about that. We have made no survey of that question.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many there are among the San Francisco Chinese?

Mr. FUNG. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there as many as 500 Chinese-American citizens in San Francisco who have wives in China?

Mr. FUNG. I would say that there are 1,000, or probably more. The CHAIRMAN. There are 1,000 Chinese-American citizens in San Francisco who already have wives in China and they are waiting for them?

Mr. FUNG. That is right. Then there is the fourth class which has alien Chinese wives previously resident within this country and who went back to China in company with their husbands and who were in possession of return certificates issued by the United States Immigration Service. These certificates allowed the holders thereof one year to spend abroad. However, the privilege of applying for an extension was given. I believe the period of extension amounted to six months. There are quite a number of these wives who went to China under those permits and on account of business of their husbands in China, stayed abroad in excess of the time permitted by those certificates. Therefore they lost their rights to return to this country, even though they are former residents of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. They got the travelers' permit?

Mr. FUNG. No; it is called a return certificate.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the old Chinese law?

Mr. FUNG. It used to be under the old law that a Form 430 return certificate without a time limit, was given. An alien Chinese wife of an American citizen holding one of those forms could travel abroad and stay away any length of time, but since July 1, 1924, these alien Chinese wives of American citizens who go abroad were given a Form 632, which is a return permit. That allows an absence of only one year. If the bill introduced by Mr. Dyer should become law, these women would be able to apply as new applicants, to join their American husbands and children, as exempts under section 13 c.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Husband, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor, is here. Mr. Husband, is what we call the travelers' permit under the law something that is given to one who is going abroad, to China, to remain a short while and return to the United States? Just explain that, if you will.

Mr. HUSBAND. Under the Chinese law it is provided that a special return permit shall be furnished laborers. That permit is good for one year residence abroad or it may be extended for another year on a valid showing of inability to return. It is similar to the present return permit. Under the old law, in order to take care of the nonlaborers who were going abroad there was in use for many years a merchants' return permit.

That was issued under no specific authority of law. After the act of 1924, having created a return permit, the merchants' return permit was abolished, and the Chinese merchant lawfully within the country was given a return permit as in the case of any alien resident, but laborers' return certificates have not been abolished. He does not get a return permit under the act of 1924, but a laborers' return permit as he has always had it under the Chinese exclusion law.

Mr. FUNG. So much for the various types of hardships caused by the present law. I do not desire to unduly detain you, because I know the time is short.

I assure you that the passage of this amendment would go far toward relieving the great hardships imposed upon a considerable body of American citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the membership of your society?
Mr. FUNG. It is 4,000.

The CHAIRMAN. You may elaborate upon your statement if you desire to do so.

Mr. FUNG. With the permission of the committee, then, I beg to include in my statement the second plea for relief, in part, as follows:

The Native Sons of the Golden State, Chinese-Americans Citizens Alliance, an organization composed of citizens of the United States of the Chinese race, submitted to the appropriate committees of the Sixty-ninth Congress in support of Senate bill 2358, and House bill 6544, both identical in form, then pending before Congress, a certain pamphlet entitled, "A plea for relief." These bills were never reported out of committee. The same bills have been introduced in the Seventieth Congress. They are Senate bill 2271, introduced by Senator King, and House bill 6974, introduced by Representative Dyer.

These bills have as their primary object the granting of relief to citizens of the United States of the Chinese race, whose alien Chinese wives are debarred from admission to the United States under subdivision (c) of section 13 of the immigration act of 1924.

The "Plea for relief" submitted to the Committee on Immigration of the Senate and to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives of the Sixty-ninth Congress is, of course, naturally equally

responsive to the present bills now pending before the Seventieth Congress, and it is therefore requested that it be considered in connection therewith and considered filed in support thereof, with like force and effect as if now originally presented. There is little to add to the said “Plea for relief." for the issue involved and the hardship complained of were sufficiently outlined therein to present the situation in which the American citizen of the Chinese race finds himself as a result of the provision of the immigration act of 1924 which it is sought to amend.

The hardship of the situation, which consists in the separation of these citizens from their wives, was dwelt upon in the "Plea for relief." The immigration act of 1924 went into effect on July 1, 1924, and as a period of over three years has elapsed since that time, and no relief has been afforded, the hardship has become more pronounced and more acute, as the period of separation has increased.

Without repeating the observations contained in the original “ Plea for relief ” on the matter of hardship and the extreme necessity for remedial legislation, it might be proper to refer to the fact that the Department of Labor itself evidently keenly recognizes the hardship, and we might say inhumanity, involved in the separation of families, for the Secretary of Labor himself in his 1927 annual report says at page 166, under the caption, "Reunion of families":

The provisions of the present immigration law which have had most serious thought are those which are designed, or should be designed. to effect the reunion of separated families. In the consideration of this subject there has also been studied means for preventing the further separation of families by the arrival in the United States of husbands and fathers as immigrants whose intention is later to bring families to this country."

The Secretary of Labor further says, on the same page of his report, after referring to the fact that the immigration act of 1924 permits the admission of wives (not born of a race ineligible to citizenship) and unmarried children under 18 years of age of citizens, as nonquota immigrants, that—

"These provisions are very just concessions to citizens, for it must be conceded that a citizen of the United States separated from his family is entitled to special consideration. Moral and economic reasons, as well as privilege because of citizenship, dictated the wisdom of joining these families and keeping them together. If citizenship is to be the basis of the right to the comfort and association of a family, then it is urged that the class of nonquota immigrants should be extended to include husbands of American citizens, as well as wives." It is, of course, unfortunate, from the viewpoint of their admissability, that the wives of the citizens of this country in whose behalf this plea is presented are for the most part of the Chinese race and resident in China, but it could hardly be otherwise, owing to the small number of Chinese women of marriageable age in the United States as compared with Chinese males of like age. Interracial marriages are not favored. either by these Chinese themselves or by Caucasians, and are prohibited by the laws of many States.

It is submitted that the same humane considerations which actuated Congress in making admissible the citizens' wives who are of a race eligible to citizenship apply with equal force to the citizens' wives who are of a race ineligible to citizenship. A man is a man whatever his race, and his natural desire for and need of his wife are the same, irrespective of his race or the race of his wife.

On page 4 of the original "Plea for relief" submitted to the committees of the Sixty-ninth Congress it was pointed out under the caption, "Alien Chinese wives of Chinese merchants admissible," that the alien Chinese wife of the alien Chinese merchant resident in the United States is admissible under the immigration act of 1924, and that the act therefore gives greater rights to an alien Chinese merchant living in this country than it does to an American citizen of the Chinese race. This situation is referred to in the 1927 report of the Secretary of Labor on page 175 in the following words:

"The Chinese exclusion act specifically permits the entrance of Chinese merchants, and the courts have held that such provision includes the wife and dependent, unmarried, minor children. Should an oriental alien, however, chance to be the wife of an American citizen, regardless of the occupational status of the husband, the wife can not be admitted, thus giving to a Chinese and other aliens the right to the association of his wife which is denied to the citizen. I am sure it was never intended by the Congress that an alien should be entitled to more rights under the immigration laws than an American citizen.”

We would like to emphasize the concluding words of the foregoing quotation: "I am sure it was never intended by the Congress that an alien should be entitled to more rights under the immigration laws than an American citizen.”

NO OTHER REMEDY BUT RELIEF FROM CONGRESS

There is no other remedy for the hardship under which the American citizen of the Chinese race suffers in his separation from his wife but relief from Congress. He went to the courts believing that the courts would hold that an American citizen had an inherent, natural, and constitutional right to have his wife with him in the country of his citizenship, that his domicile was her domicile, and that his home was her home. But the United States Supreme Court in the test case of Chang Chan et al. . John D. Nagle (268 U. S. 346; 45 Sup. Ct. 540) decided otherwise, and his only hope of relief is in following the intimation contained in the decision of the court to the effect that Congress alone can remove the hardship from which he suffers. The decision of the United States Court is printed in the appendix to the original "Plea for relief," referred to herein on pages 27, 28, and 29. It will be noticed that the Supreme Court said:

"In response to the demand for an interpretation of the act which will avoid hardships and further a supposed rational and consistent policy, it suffices to refer to what we have said in Yee Won v. White (256 U. S. 399, 401, 402); Chung Fook v. White (264 U. S. 443, 445, 446)."

In the case of Chung Fook v. White, referred to by the court in the Chang Chan case, the court said:

"The words of the statute being clear, if it unjustly discriminates against the native-born citizen, or is cruel and inhuman in its results, as forcefully con tended, the remedy lies with Congress and not with the courts. Their duty is simply to enforce the law as it is written, unless clearly unconstitutional."

Therefore the American citizen of the Chinese race comes to Congress for relief. Has he come in vain? We trust not.

STATEMENT OF W. U. LUM, GRAND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED PARLOR OF THE NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN STATE, CHINESE AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to hear anything the gentleman may have to tell us.

Mr. LUM. Really, gentlemen, I do not know what I can add to what has been said by the two gentlemen who have preceded me this morning. I believe it would be well to let matters stand as they

are now.

Mr. GREEN. Would you like to put a brief statement in the record? Mr. LUM. Perhaps I could write something interesting for you. The CHAIRMAN. What would you think if this committee if we undertook to make certain amendments of this kind and at the same time to abolish the entire exclusion act? To restate that, if while we perfect these amendments we repealed the whole Chinese exclusion act, how would that be? Would we have not just as good Chinese restriction under the inadmissible clause as we now have and do away with all this doubling and work in connection with court decisions?

Mr. LUM. I do not think I am competent to answer that question. Mr. DYER. Mr. Husband, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor, and who is, as you know, one of the highest authorities we have in this country on immigration matters, is here. I asked the committee to invite Mr. Husband to come here this morning so that he might be available to answer any questions that may arise. Do you gentlemen desire to hear Mr. Husband this morning?

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is always glad to have Mr. Husband with it and to hear what he has to say. Mr. Husband, is there anything you desire to state in connection with this matter?

Mr. HUSBAND. Mr. Chairman, the department's attitude has been well stated, particularly in the quotation from the last annual

report of the Secretary. That quotation is given in Mr. White's letter to the chairman under date of January 13, 1928.

This is, as has been suggested, a matter of policy in which we hesitate to be too vociferous in communicating with the committee; but I may add that we have had the feeling that granting rights to aliens, the aliens who are merchants or international merchants under the act of 1924, and professors and ministers who are aliens, and withholding a similar right to an American citizen, was hardly an equitable thing to do.

I might add, in order to give you the development of the record, a table showing aliens of the Chinese race admitted as wives of United States citizens during the fiscal year 1906 to 1924, both years inclusive. It shows as follows:

Mr. HUSBAND. There was no record kept prior to 1906, and, of course, there has been no record since 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. The highest numbers were in 1922 and 1924, when 396 aliens of the Chinese race were admitted as wives of United States citizens in each year. The figure 691 is the total for the first 9 years and the figure 2,157 is the figure for the last 10 years.

Mr. Box. It has been stated that there are 15,000 male Japanese American citizens and almost an equal number of unmarried females. Mr. DYER. That would include married and unmarried.

Mr. Box. You have no record of the number married and unmarried?

Mr. HUSBAND. I think statistics show the conjugal status, to use the census term, of all people by nationalities.

Mr. Box. From that we could learn the possible number who could go abroad and marry Japanese women and bring them to the United States?

Mr. HUSBAND. I believe that information is available.

Mr. DYER. I will endeavor to get that information for the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We speak of this as a Chinese matter and we hear about American citizens of Chinese ancestry, but we have to realize that this would affect the whole oriental status, including Hindoos and everybody else.

Mr. HUSBAND. So far as the admission of aliens is concerned, it would affect the races that are ineligible to citizenship and that includes all the oriental races. However, so far as citizens are concerned, it includes all citizens of the United States. In practice, of course, it is confined largely to citizens of the same races, but an American citizen who is a Son of the Revolution could not marry a