Now, Senator, I endeavored to obtain a copy of a pamphlet issued by the Public Health Service, if my recollection is correct, Public Health Bulletin No. 206. I did not bring it down. As a matter of fact, I may say I really did not expect to say much today. I thought others would talk before me. In that document there is a statement about the general character of the tests which have been applied to aliens coming into the United States, and if my recollection is correct the inference clearly given is that the examining authorities are really using a very low-grade test now to establish the right of admission into this country. In other words, to determine whether a person is a moron or not seems to be about the limit of the intelligence test. If the examining officer thinks they are just above the moron, they get in. Of course, that is a frightful test, and instead of having a test of 100—I am speaking from recollection now-the test or score of a person who makes about 30 will let him in. It is our contention that in order to get into the United States a person should be at least as intelligent as the average white person, and it is perfectly practicable, as the Army test shows, to establish a method of testing immigrants so that we shall be relieved of having these border-line cases of low intelligence coming into the country.

Of course, from the organization standpoint we want immigration reduced to the minimum, but those that do come in at least should be as good as we are or better.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Without in any way indicating any conclusion about this matter, I would like to have you discuss it from this point of view, Captain. My first-blush impression, reading this paragraph, was that it was a rather indefinite statement and would be difficult of administration because of indefiniteness, and that if a provision such as this should go into the law it should be written with more definite standards laid down.

Senator REYNOLDS. I am glad the chairman brought that up, because we have found it extremely difficult to specify the task, and in a sense I have been of the opinion that it would have to be left up largely to the discretion of the consul.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. The first part is not so hard, but you say here "whose reputation or personal characteristics, in the judgment of the consul, renders the applicant not readily assimilable." It seems to me that if you have a dozen consuls you would have a dozen different tests.

Mr. TREVOR. May I discuss that?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes.

Mr. TREVOR. There is no question but that where the question of reputation and whether the person would be readily assimilable, insofar as it was left to the discretion of the consul, would result in some divergence of opinion. It is conceivable you might have a consul in a certain port who would be much more liberal in his interpretation of what was assimilable and what was not assimilable. Taking it by and large, our Consular Service at the present time is pretty high grade, and I think the State Department unquestionably makes a real effort to get the right kind of men in its posts. A consul who has this responsibility fixed on him would be able to reject a man whom he knew from general facts about the applicant was really not a desirable person to come in, although he would not want, or would not be in a position, to level some particular charge

at him. You and I, speaking among ourselves, know lots of people who do not fall within the category of criminals or technical violators of the law, but we think they are thoroughly undesirable members of our own community, and if we were consuls, and we knew so and so was applying, we would say, "No; that man hasn't got a good reputation in his community, and for that reason we don't think he ought to come in." I think that we have some consuls who are leaning over backward in the interest of the United States rather than in the interest of the alien, and I think that is the way we should look at this whole immigration problem.

When a person is allowed to come into this country, we are allowing him to come in to really compete against domestic labor and to get the benefits of our institutions and all that our country affords in the way of opportunity-or at least it has in the past. The position of my organization, my association, is that only the people that would really benefit this country in future ought to come, and not the border line case of the fellow who-"well, I just don't know anything against him. He has a rather bad reputation and should not be allowed to enter the United States."

In regard to the intelligence test, we had some talk about that last year, and some of the scientific witnesses, I believe, suggested in the testimony last year that it was possible to write into a section of this kind a requirement that certain particular tests should be written into this section. I imagine the Senator, from our discussions last year and what happened, probably believed

Senator REYNOLDS (interposing). What was the name of our expert down here at that time?

Mr. TREVOR. Dr. Armstrong. We felt that the Public Health Service, if the thing was put right up to them, would select a test or make such requirements on existing tests that instead of using lowgrade Polish, which I understand is about the standard for admission into the United States now, that they might use a high-grade something else. I am not saying that in prejudice to Poles or any other race, Senator, because we realize that some brilliant people have come from all the races, but I am merely making it a point that it is perfectly practicable, in the opinion of scientists, to pick out some tests that will give us people of high rating instead of low rating. It might be possible to rewrite that section and put them in. I mean I could make suggestions as to what should be put in, and I know the scientists that we have down here were very anxious to write certain things into that section, but I felt in talking with Dr. Armstrong that it was rather better to give some scope to the Public Health Service in the adoption of the test that might be selected.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Have you given any though to the idea as to whether or not this last part, reputation and personal characteristics, is a proper delegation of legislative authority?

Mr. TREVOR. The Consular Service, as I happen to know, certainly gives that discretionary power to their representatives, unquestionably. Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I was talking about the purely constitutional question of whether Congress has the right to do it.

Mr. TREVOR. I do not think there is any question but that Congress has a perfect right to determine any qualifications.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Certainly, but I am talking about the

147479-37-4

purely constitutional question of leaving it entirely to the discretion of the consul to set the standards.

Mr. TREVOR. The Constitution unquestionably would give power to the executive department to perform such acts as Congress may determine to be proper in respect to the entry of people into the United States, because no person outside of the United States has any right to enter. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives such a right.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. That is not the point I am making. I am merely trying to be helpful, and the point is whether or not this would be subject to the criticism that it was an improper delegation of legislative authority, the same as the N. R. A. case and the Hot Oil case, where they held that they had to set up a definite standard whenever we delegated authority.

Senator REYNOLDS. I have read of that opinion, Senator, and I am going to make the suggestion, if I may, that we request Captain Trevor to provide us with his suggestions as to just what definite tests or rules should be set, merely for the consideration of the committee. That will save a great deal of your time now.

Mr. TREVOR. I think I can give you some information regarding the present delegation of authority, which is rather broad. In other words, I do not think that this section is doing much more than what we already do, although I do not think that our standards are high enough.

Senator REYNOLDS. Captain, will you be good enough to provide in writing your suggestions as to what specific or particular tests should be used, and the manner and the form in which they should be submitted?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes; I will be glad to do that. Shall I submit it to the chairman or submit it to you?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Just give it to Senator Reynolds.
Senator REYNOLDS. And I will submit it to the chairman.

Mr. TREVOR. Very well.

Subsection (b) of section C is merely in line with the general policy that I have been advocating, that if any member of a family fails to meet the requirements of subsection (a), that should exclude the whole family. That is to avoid those cases like the Sammy Goldman case that I spoke about this morning.

Senator REYNOLDS. Avoid separation of the family?

Mr. TREVOR. Avoid separation of the family through the admission of someone who was really intellectually under par.

Section 4 confers power on the President to do what the executive branch of almost, I imagine, every country in the world does. Certainly the British use the broadest discretion in the exclusion of people that they think would be contrary to the public interest to come into their country.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. That section is putting into immigration the same principle, in effect, that you would have in 1363 in the matter of deportation.

Mr. TREVOR. Yes; it was to confer the power to exclude a man like Strachey, for example. If I recall correctly, in the Strachey case the State Department was certainly aware that Strachey was of communistic inclinations and reputation, but they did not feel that the statute was broad enough to exclude him. Now, I am not speaking

of Strachey because of any particular antagonism to him personally. I merely use him as an illustration of a case of which there might be many more extreme cases, where the executive departments claim they do not have the right to exclude, although they might like to exclude, and it is the exercise of a perfectly proper power for the President to have. And that applies to the person who comes here as a visitor or for permanent residence. Have I covered that sufficiently? Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes; I think so.

Senator MOORE. Do they not have a test now for applicants? Mr. TREVOR. Well, we have been going over a good many of the tests this afternoon, Senator, but this particular one, section 5Senator MOORE (interposing). I mean the intelligence test. Mr. TREVOR. I just covered that.

Senator MOORE. I say, do we not have such a test now? This provides that before any visa shall be issued he shall be able to pass the intelligence test equivalent to or higher than so and so. We do have the test now, do we not?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes, we just concluded discussing that section, and I was talking about section 4, and I was urging in connection with section 2 referred to, that we use a standard which would bring into our country people of at least equal intelligence to our own, instead of people who just passed the stage of being morons, as I think is what happens now in many instances. They are using, if my information is correct, a test which is about equivalent to low grade Polish, you see, as a standard. Well, we think that our own standard of average intelligence in our country ought to be the standard by which people are brought into this country.

Now, I was discussing section 4. Have I covered that sufficiently, do you think, Senator?

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. I think so.

Mr. TREVOR. Section 5 is an amendment which the Senator introduced to this bill, I think very properly, because you may recall that, I think it was last year, an immigrant was detained in the port of San Francisco by the immigration authorities and ordered deported on the ground that he was suffering from trachoma, trachoma being a communicable disease.

By an interpretation which I think was a wholly improper interpretation, if you consider the reasons why the section which is amended was placed in the original law, a special rule was issued by which this alien suffering from trachoma was permitted to enter the United States. That alien traveled in the cars and went to the hotels, and every passenger on the cars or the airplanes on which he traveled was subject to possible infection, in spite of any arrangements which were made to guard against such transmission. As I understand it, the arrangement was made that someone should accompany this alien while he was traveling through the United States, to guard against these things, but, as a matter of practical operation in a case of that kind you cannot protect, you cannot be assured that the bed clothing and the towels and the napkins and one thing and another that are used by the person suffering from trachoma will not transmit the disease to some perfectly innocent person. Trachoma is a very insidious disease. It is a disease that takes a long time to develop. Senator MOORE. It is a disease of the eye, is it not?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes; and it is a disease that was very nearly stopped from coming into this country. There was great opposition among the alien blocs at one time against the examination of aliens attempting to enter with trachoma, and I remember that some years ago 2,000 were stopped coming into the port of New York and were diverted to Galveston because it was believed they would get by the immigration authorities in Galveston better than in New York.

Senator MOORE. Do they not examine them on the other side?

Mr. TREVOR. They do now, but this was under the old system. Here was a flagrant case of a man in advanced stages of trachoma, allowed to come in under a special rule. When this section of the law that is sought to be amended by Senator Reynolds was written, as it is now written in the statutes, it was intended solely to take care of emergency cases of aliens caught at immigration stations where they could not get hospital treatment. The law provided for a temporary admission so that they would get proper attention, and then be deported. This interpretation by the Secretary of Labor in my opinion, would-if you will look up the original records of the report that accompanied the act of 1917, and the discussions that were had at that time over that provision, and also if you will look at the existing regulations which I have here, you will see what the clear intent of Congress was. It was only to deal with emergency cases. contend that such an exercise of discretionary power imperils a great many innocent people from infection by the disease, and nobody can tell now whether they have got it or not. Is that sufficient on that? Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Yes.

We

Mr. TREVOR. Section 6. The Senator introduced a section here that would establish the law as it was before it was amended, if my recollection is correct, about 1929. The alien blocs brought enormous pressure to secure the amendment of the law as it now stands, and the argument has been made that 80 percent, I think, of the aliens who are deportable under existing statutes might reenter legally if they were given permission to do so by the Secretary of Labor. Our position is that if an alien is deportable under existing statutes and has been deported, we would greatly promote the interests of our own people from the standpoint of reducing the alien population, if for no other reason than that those people were not allowed to return, but if you will read the provisions of the immigration law under which an alien is deported, we think that the alien once deported should stay deported, not be granted permission to return, and this section of yours, Senator, we think is highly meritorious and certainly should be incorporated in the statute. Have I covered that sufficiently? Senator REYNOLDS. I think that covers it.

Senator SCHWELLENBACH. Look at lines 2 to 5, page 6. I would like to have you discuss that, if you will.

Mr. TREVOR. Yes. It has been the practice of the Department— and in some cases I think it has been very badly abused-to permit aliens to leave the country who are mandatorily deportable under the law, under the agreement that they will pay their own expenses to get out. For instance, you take a Communist of the most objectionable type as an example, and he is mandatorily deportable under the provisions of the act of 1920, the act of 1918, as amended by the act of 1920. That man, if he is allowed to go by the Department, pays his own fare out and he can be given permission to come back again, but if he is deported he cannot come back. I remember a case many