the law. I feel that all the more because of the limitation upon the discretion given to the Department.

You said, Senator Schwellenbach, I think it was yesterday morning, that you had great sympathy for the alien who had come in before the law was passed, and that this discretion was intended to take care of him; but that the alien who, after 1921 and 1924, had come into the United States, was not entitled to the same consideration after the change in the policy of the American government.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I did not mean to imply there would be in my mind any arbitrary figure. I intended to convey the idea that gradually, with our changed policy in reference to immigration, that would be done. Mrs. Davidson said she did not feel that 13 or 17 years was long enough. I do not now know long a time we should have, but it is my feeling that we must recognize the fact that the policy of this Government in respect to immigration has been materially changed. I do not mean it should start immediately, March 21, 1921, July 1, 1924, or August 5, 1937; but I think there must be a change in our attitude to correspond to the change in the policy of the Government.

Miss KING. I think that may or may not be true, but I think the answer Mrs. Davidson made was not by any means the complete answer. This problem of discretion is not the problem of a man who entered after 1921 or 1924. It is a limited discretion to a certain number of people for a certain number of years. Every year there will be more people coming in and applying for American citizenship. As I said, it can only be taken care of for 4 years and for 8,000 people. It seems to me that if the policy of discretion outlined in this bill is sound-and in my opinion it is sound and has been tried for a long time-the usual way, I think, would not have been the method outlined by Mr. Fagen. He said there should be an appeal to the courts. I think he was wrong. We never had a policy of appealing from punishment to anyone. I believe this discretionary proposition is exactly the same as we have in our criminal law in the form of pardons, commutations, and so on.

We have always felt that whenever the situation arose the policy should be observed. I do not think that 4 years will take care of the change in policy, because this situation will continue to arise for a long time after the expiration of those 4 years.

There is another problem. I have handled a good many alien cases. In the last 4 months there were hundreds of people who came to my office and asked: "How can we apply for the discretion the Labor Department will get if the Dies bill passes?" They do not use that language, but that is what they mean. I do not know how many there are in the United States. I believe there are more than 8,000. If these people actually apply to the Labor Department, let us suppose there are 10,000. The law says it will take care of 8,000 and no more. It is made very plain that the other 2,000 are deportable, if they were here illegally, and that will not relieve the situation. The Labor Department must deport them, and they may be right in doing so. I do not believe, despite what you said to Mr. Fagen, that the situation is so hopeless in relation to the 3,900 cases. I do not believe the Congress is going to take the position that, because this law may fall through, that is the end of it. These 3,900 people would have to

pay the penalty for the failure of the Dies bill. I believe Congress will do something to take care of the situation which needs attention, and will not take any action which will be unfair and unjust to the alien who is convicted of a trivial offense.

I should like to say one word more. I think Senator Copeland's amendment, in which he says "not of a petty nature", will not help the situation, because of the fact that a crime involving moral turpitude could not be of a petty nature. All these things are within the discretion of the Labor Department. From my experience I feel it is safer for the alien to stay as is, than it is to extend the law of deportation so wide that he may be subjected to persecution and prosecution for many years, because of the passage of this bill.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You are really opposed to both sections, are you not?

Miss KING. I believe there should be discretion, but not unlimited discretion.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. And so you are opposed to both?

Miss KING. Yes; but I feel that, despite that position, Congress is to be commended for beginning to realize that the Labor Department, which has so competently administered these laws, is not going to abuse discretion.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I Would like to have you consider this suggestion with reference to subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 1: Could a definition of the word "institution", in line 2 on page 2, be worked out in such a way as to meet your objection?

Miss KING. No; because no matter whether it is a State prison, or whether it is confinement in the county jail for 1 day or 2 weeks, you will find the alien has been treated unfairly.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Basing it upon the law of your own State, in which there is a classification of the sentences whereby a sentence of a day or a week or anything less than 6 months must be to the county jail, is it not probably true that every State has a similar classification?

Miss KING. I do not know. If it is true that 6 months is the limit in the county jail, why not define it by the length of the sentence? My feeling is that when an alien comes into criminal court he is at a disadvantage, and properly so, perhaps, and that the court will be less sympathetic with him and will give him a longer sentence than he would give a citizen in the same circumstances. If the criminal court gives him a small sentence, it is obvious that what he did was not serious, did not amount to anything, and he should not be deported for it.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Your objection to the two is the provision that they shall apply even if the alien is not sentenced to imprisonment?

Miss KING. Yes. I say there is nothing in carrying concealed weapons that involves moral turpitude.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. What you would like to see is an amendment inserting after the words "involving moral turpitude" the words "which for the purposes of this act shall include the crime of possessing or carrying firearms", and then make a limit as to the length of the sentence.

Miss KING. Exactly.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. TREVOR, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN COALITION

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. You may proceed, first giving your name. Mr. TREVOR. My name is John B. Trevor. I represent the American Coalition. I was also asked by telephone this morning, by Mr. Wilmot, national secretary of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, to appear here and oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we think this legislation performs two functions. It is designed and intended for the benefit of persons of foreign origin, to whom the Government owes no obligation whatsoever and who by their conduct have constituted themselves a menace to the communities in which they live. That is the first point. I think that should be kept foremost in mind in considering how this legislation should be drafted and administered.

The second function is equally as important. It is an attempt to so amend our statutes that aliens seeking entry into the United States, even though they may enter illegally, may escape the consequences of the law. It is obvious that it will create a situation, by granting this broad discretionary power, whereby the people may stay in the country and escape the penalty of deportation. This procedure would practically wipe restrictive legislation off the statute books, because these precedents will thereafter be held out to other people in foreign lands as strong inducements to come here and take a chance at escaping the penalties now imposed by law. These are the two functions which I think the committee should keep in mind.

There are, of course, two viewpoints on this question. There is the international viewpoint. This group includes the socialistic internationalists, the communistic internationalists, and those who seek to maintain their racial integrity in the United States, all of them continually protesting against any deportation laws. Some of these groups think of their own people as entitled to special consideration regardless of their profession of American nationality. Our position, as I have pointed out many times to this committee and the House committee, is that we believe the general welfare of all the people of the United States is the thing that Congress must consider.

Speaking generally, I may say that in years gone by this question of discretionary power on the part of the executive branch of the Government was brought before Members of Congress and congressional committees when the Republican Party was dominant, and the leaders of that party refused to grant such discretionary power to their own people in executive positions, because they felt that to do so would open wide the gates to political abuses. I will speak a little more about this particular point when I come to the section granting broad discretionary power to the Department of Labor.

We believe this bill is a most curious hodge-podge of ideas. We believe also it is full of confusion of thought. For instance, take subsection 1 of section 1, which is to be read really in connection with section 5 of this bill. I do not know what it means. I do not know how section 5 governs section 1, and do not know whether it does govern it or not. Section 5 says:

The provisions of this Act are in addition to and, except where previous laws are expressly amended, not in substitution for the provisions of the immigration laws (including sec. 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917), and shall be enforced as a part of such laws.

If that is to be taken at its face value, it means that the present law, which calls for the deportation of an alien within 5 years after entry shall remain in force. To make myself clear, I will read it. On page 41 of the revised immigration laws, published by the Department of Labor, section 19 contains this statement:

Any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 1 year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within 5 years after the entry of the alien to the United States, or who is hereafter sentenced more than once to such a term of imprisonment because of conviction in this country of any crime involving moral tirpitude, committed at any time after entry.

Now, apparently, section 5 leaves that provision of the law standing, as I have just said. I think, however, that confusion is going to arise, because I believe the general proposition of law is that a later act, where it appears in any way to conflict with a previous act, is usually taken as binding, although it may not expressly repeal the provisions of the prior act. Am I not correct?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes; that is correct. Section 1 provides that an alien shall be deported in the manner provided in sections 19 and 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. It seems to be that, taken in connection with section 5, makes clear the reference to sections 19 and 20.

Mr. TREVOR. I think my view is already justified by section 1 of the bill as now drafted. This section provides that any alien, who is hereafter convicted in the United States within 5 years of the institution of deportation proceedings against him of a crime involving moral turpitude for which the alien is committed to an institution as result of such conviction

shall be deported.

I also think the proponents of this bill have the impression that it is pretty drastic. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say there is going to be a mix-up in determining what it really does mean. You and I are trying to be reasonable. I think you are, but we have our differences of opinion. This is not a penal law. Deportation is not a punishment, but, at the same time, the court would probably hold that it has to be strictly interpreted as is the case in a strictly penal

statute.

There is another objection to section 1. I do not want to be hypercritical about this draft, but it seems to me, if an alien is sentenced to jail for 6 years, be could not be deported, because the bill says the alien is to be deported "if hereafter convicted in the United States within 5 years of the institution of deportation proceedings against him.'

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. They could institute such proceedings by serving him while he was in jail.

Mr. TREVOR. They could, but if they did not he could not be deported. That is a rather absurd situation.

have previously inserted in another record of testimony a statement by Colonel McCormack, which is so important that I would like to read two or three paragraphs from it. He said, on page 4 of House Document No. 392, Seventy-fourth Congress, second session, January 1, 1936, in regard to habitual alien criminal cases:

Criminal aliens who have had as many as 30 separate convictions, others who have spent half their time in this country in prison, aliens guilty of the most serious crimes, including homicide, rape, kidnaping, grand larceny, counterfeiting, debauching the morals of minors, cannot in many cases be deported under the present law.

Now, get this, which relates to the time limit that is advocated:

This is due to the fact that the present law requires conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, punished by imprisonment of 1 year or more within 5 years of the alien's entry into the country, or two such convictions and sentences since May 1, 1917.

I would like to have incorporated in my testimony a reprint of of pages 16 to 21, inclusive, taken from a memorandum of the Department of Labor, Immigration and Naturalization Service, of April 24, 1934. That was prepared by the Department of Labor and submitted to the Senate and to the House. On these pages appear a list of alien habitual criminals not subject to deportation under existing laws. It is a very interesting analysis of the kind of offenses these people are guilty of, but who would not be deportable under the Dies bill unless "hereafter" convicted of a new offense other than narcotic peddling or gun toting.

(The data referred to are here set forth in full as follows:)

Alien habitual criminals not subject to deportation under existing law

[Cases selected from 235 disclosed in investigation of arrests in a 15-day period in two cities-New York and Chicago]