Mr. TREVOR. Yes. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Just one sentence answers the question: "The situation can best be cared for by making the noncommercial participant deportable for more than one transgression." The position of the captain, as I understand it, is that it is divided up among the members of the family, so that one boy helps at one time and

another the next time?

Mr. TREVOR. That is right. The whole family may be engaged in it, and you could not deport anybody.

Is that sufficient on that?

Senator REYNOLDS. I think so.

Mr. TREVOR. Subsection VI provides "has been engaged in espionage for a foreign government." I should not think it needs any argument to urge Congress to pass a law that persons engaged in such espionage should be expelled from the country. I know there were hundreds of such persons over here during the war and, if my recollection is correct, the French Government took a very highminded position that they would not send their people to this country to do that kind of work. They appealed to us to make investigations for them when information came that a bad situation existed here. I carried on a good many of those investigations under the orders that we had to cooperate with the representatives of foreign powers. I do not want to criticize some of our good friends who did come over here, because I know they rendered distinct service to our common cause and were most helpful, and in most instances they behaved with the most rigid propriety in their activities here. However, I think our Government should have the power to remove anybody who engages in espionage at any time. If the Senator cares to have me do so, off the record at some time I will be glad to go into that more fully.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. To what extent do you think it is carried on in ordinary times?

Mr. TREVOR. I think you would probably be amazed if you knew what it was. At the present time I hold no official position and have no official sources of information, but one does not forget what one learned under that emergency. I am satisfied that a good deal of it is going on now. There are authoritative sources of information to which the Senator can appeal.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Let me put it this way: Your connection was during the time of war?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. From your experience during that time did you learn of such activities prior to the war?

Mr. TREVOR. I would rather go into that question off the record, if I might be permitted to do so, in respect to activities going on prior to the war.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I do not mean to give particular instances but you might put your general experience in the record.

Mr. TREVOR. From my general knowledge of the subject, I assure you that it was carried on for some time in this country prior to our entering the war.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Was it carried on prior to the outbreak of the war?

Mr. TREVOR. It was carried on prior to the outbreak of the World War.

Senator REYNOLDS. In August of 1914?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes. I know personally of an instance which occurred back in 1907, where a spy of a foreign country was located here and obtained information which was subsequently made available to his country. Under the law, so far as I am aware, nothing could have been done about it unless he had actually been caught in some illegal enterprise.

Is that sufficient on this section?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes.

Mr. TREVOR. If you care to talk with me at some other time about it, I will be glad to do so.

Subsection VII provides: "has been convicted of possessing or carrying any concealed or dangerous weapon." That is really taken from the legislation sponsored by the Department. It requires the actual conviction for the crime of carrying such a weapon, and not merely its possession, in order to make the person deportable. There are many cases of a racketeer who is known to have committed a number of crimes which cannot be proved against him, but he can be deported under this because of conviction for carrying a dangerous weapon. It would undoubtedly aid a good deal in clearing up the racketeering in our big cities.

Is there anything further on that?
Senator REYNOLDS. No.

Mr. TREVOR. The next is section 2, subsection (a), which provides that the Secretary of Labor may suspend the execution of deportation against an alien found subject to deportation for a period not to exceed 12 months dated from the issuance of the original warrant of deportation, if the alien has a dependent wife or child who is a citizen of the United States: Provided that the alien is not comprised within the classes of persons deportable in accordance with the provisions of 40 Statute 1012, as amended by 41 Statute 1008, or that the offense for which the alien is deportable is not classifiable as a felony, or that the alien is not suffering from a hereditary physical or mental defect. In other words, that section would empower the Secretary of Labor to suspend the deportation of a person who inadvertently or innocently violated a purely technical provision of the law; but it would not empower the Secretary to relieve aliens who are deportable because they belong to one of the classes excluded by law. It would not permit the Department to exempt people who have been guilty of crime. An inadvertent violation by an alien who happended to cross the border into Canada on the way to Detroit might result in a case of inadvertent violation of the law to which I referred, and it would probably be pretty hard to make a case on that. But in other cases which were deliberate attempts to violate the law the Secretary would not be given power to exempt them from deportation. Subsection (b) of section 2 provides for quarterly reports by the Secretary of Labor on or before the 15th day of January, April, July, and October of each year, containing a complete list of all deportable aliens whose deportation was suspended during the preceding 3 months under authority conferred by this section, together with a complete record of each case and full reasons for each such suspension, and all such reports and information shall be open to public inspection.

The purpose of that subsection is obviously to enable Congress to act on those cases which create the difficulties to which I have referred. I want to say in connection with this matter that we have

been confronted with this situation ever since Miss Perkins has been in charge of the Department of Labor. I am expressing my personal opinion, but I do not think it is confined to myself. She has not had any regard for the statutes. I can show you in the testimony that the Commissioner of Immigration delivered before the House committee where he said that he no longer could take the responsibility for certain acts that they were guilty of, in violation of the clear intent of an act of Congress, because they put the Department above Congress in its judgment as to what should be done. In some cases, alleged to have been meritorious, Senator Reynolds made a personal examination of the records of the Department of Labor and he discussed them on the floor of the Senate. The Senator's investigation into the character of some of those aliens they alleged to be of good character, disclosed they were of anything but good character.

I do not think I am indiscreet in saying that one Member of the other House showed me a bunch of records which were sent to the House which demonstrated conclusively that the digests were not correct. In three out of five cases the Congressman had in his hand the cases were such that I do not think anybody here present would hesitate to say that the alien should have been put out of the country and never should have been exempted from deportation.

I said in front of the House Committee that the policy of the Department is absolutely at variance with that of previous Democratic and Republican Administrations in respect to giving information. That is very important and should have the attention of the committee. In former days any citizen could go to the Department and obtain any statistical information regarding its operations without any question as to why he wanted to know it. Speaking as a private citizen, I know that not only myself, but a number of other citizens have been refused such information. I know I have no right as a private citizen to demand of a Government Department information on questions of policy. If I were in official position I would refuse such information, and I think anybody else would. But it is not what we are going to do in the future, but information about what has been done which was refused. That is statistical information and regulations which have been issued respecting the entry of persons into the United States. If we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people should have that information. It cannot be obtained at this time. When I took it up with the House committee Commissioner MacCormack rose and assured me that I would be given the information, which I desired. In fact, however, I never received the information.

In former days it was the custom bimonthly to issue a statistical summary of the operations of the Department that many people received and which was given to the press. The ground for discontinuing that was alleged to be economy. It is not for me to question what the motives are that impel people to keep such things secret; but I feel that when the records of violations of the law are kept as secret as they have been under the present Administration of the Department of Labor, it is time the whole subject should be well aired. What the Senator has required here is that the Congress shall be given the information on which it can act, and not turn over everything to executive authority and let them do the whole business. I think that is a perfectly reasonable and proper requirement, and I

think the Senator should be congratulated by every citizen for having brought that here in concrete form in a bill to be considered by this committee. I could enumerate a number of occasions on which I believe the statutes have been violated by the Department. It is well known, of course, and a matter of record.

Subsection (c) of section II provides:

The Secretary of Labor is authorized to provide transportation for a dependent husband or wife or minor children of an alien ordered deported from the United States if the separation involves extreme hardship: Provided, however, That the wife or minor child of a citizen of the United States born in the United States accompanying an alien deported from the United States shall be positively and definitely identified by finger printing or foot printing for the purpose of establishing their right of re-entry as citizens of the United States.

I do not think anybody can dispute that proposal although it would be purely an act of charity. Our country would be benefited by the elimination of the whole family. I think it would save an enormous amount of money to the taxpayers if we could get rid of the whole crowd of people that are involved in one of these deportation cases. You will notice there is careful provision for protection of the wife or child of the citizen of the United States by providing that they shall be identified by finger printing or foot printing. They occasionally foot print the babies. That is done so that their right to return to the United States will be protected.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Section 2 is really a substitute for a somewhat similar provision of the present law?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes. It is the only provision I know of which will control what is to be done. In other words, Congress will retain the right to direct how the law shall be administered. There could not be violations prolonged indefinitely. They would be reported. The character of the people would be reported to Congress.

Of course, you know a good many of these cases where private bills are introduced, the facts actually adduced before Congress constitute sufficient ground, in my opinion, for indictment in the Federal courts for perjury or perpetration of any of those crimes which are enumerated in section XXII of the act of 1924; but aside from that and the matter of putting the alien on a different basis from the United States citizen, it is our right to get rid of them, as far as we are concerned. That is for the past, and not for the future. I think they should be prosecuted the way you or I would be prosecuted for forging a Government document.

Section 3 of S. 1365 provides as follows:

Any employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service designated by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization shall have power to detain for investigation any alien who he has reason to believe is subject to deportation under this or any other statute. Any alien so detained shall be immediately brought before an immigration inspector designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Labor, and shall not be held in custody for more than 48 hours thereafter, unless prior to the expiration of that time a warrant for his arrest is issued.

As I read that section, it is a substitute for the provision found in the Kerr-Coolidge bill, with the exception that it provides that the agents of the Department may detain the alien for 48 hours instead of 24 hours. There are very many remote points in the country where a detention of 24 hours would simply mean the alien would get away and not be deported. With 48 hours detention of an alien suspected of illegal entry we think there can be no objection. We cordially

endorse the Senator's modification of that provision. Section 4 of S. 1365 provides as follows:

Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien or any person to evade or violate any provision of this Act or connives or conspires with any alien or any person to evade or violate this Act shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

We think that provision is absolutely essential. If my recollection is correct, that penalty is in the act of 1924. I think the Senator has probably taken that act as the basis.

Section 5 of S. 1365 provides that:

The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of the immigration laws and shall be enforced as part of those laws, and all the penal or other provisions of such laws not inapplicable shall apply to and be enforced in connection with the provisions of this Act.

I do not think anybody will dispute that. So much for S. 1365. S. 1366 is a bill to further reduce immigration, to authorize the exclusion of any alien whose entry into the United States is inimical to the public interest, to prohibit the separation of familes through the entry of aliens leaving dependents abroad, and for other purposes. Our organization supports this bill, as it does the other bills the Senator has introduced, without any qualification at all. I can see no reason why the quota should not be cut to 10 percent.

Senator REYNOLDS. You men cut 90 percent, do you not?
Mr. TREVOR. Yes.

Senator REYNOLDS. Thereby reducing it to 10 percent of the quota.
Mr. TREVOR. Yes.

Senator REYNOLDS. So far as the Eastern Hemisphere is concerned. Mr. TREVOR. Yes. I do not recall why the Senator happened to pick on 10 percent, but, if my recollection is correct, that provision was embodied in some of the House bills. Mr. Dies had a bill of that kind from which that figure was derived, possibly.

Senator REYNOLDS. The reason I suggest that the quota allowance in the act of 1924 be reduced 90 percent is that I had in mind the 10,000,000 people who are out of employment in the United States today. That was the only reason, in order that the American citizens might be provided with opportunity to secure gainful employment, rather than to allow aliens to come in at the rate of 150,000 a year. I believe the statistics show that in the past 3 years they have not been taking advantage of the full quota allowed.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. If you have those figures I think they should go into the record.

Mr. TREVOR. I can give you the figures.

Senator REYNOLDS. And for the further reason that for the past 3 years we have had many immigrants coming into this country that we have not been able to assimilate. That is particularly true of New York City, which is now the metropolis of the world. They have been coming in at such a rapid rate that we have not been able to assimilate them, and I thought the quota should be reduced to such time as we might be able to do so. That was a reason for asking that it be reduced to 10 percent, as provided in this bill.

Mr. TREVOR. Our standpoint is substantially that expressed by the Senator, but in addition to what the Senator has said, we know and perhaps the chairman of the committee knows that under a regulation