Now, you have read in many instances in this country where a man that has stolen a loaf of bread got 20 years, while a man who stole $10,000, maybe, got 6 weeks.

Mr. CRAVENS. Of course, we are trying to take care of them.

Mr. SEIBERT. Yes, you are; and that is the proposition in a nutshell. I do not think that the alien citizen under this bill has the protection he is entitled to under the Constitution. I am arguing it strictly from the Bill of Rights. I am trying to stay to that.

Mr. CRAVENS. I understand the sincerity of your argument. But where is he deprived of any right? That is what I cannot get through my mind; what right he is being deprived of?

Mr. SEIBERT. He is deprived, for instance, it sets up that board, if I read the act right, and the Immigration Department, upon the request of this citizen, shall set up certain circumstances under which he shall report, a probationary period, so-called, as I gather.

Mr. CRAVENS. That is after, though, he has been determined to be subject to deportation under existing law.

Mr. SEIBERT. I do not interpret it that way.

Mr. CRAVENS. He has got to be deported, but for some political or other reason his own country will not take him.

Mr. SEIBERT. I do not interpret it that way. It just says that the board shall do it with the Attorney General.

Mr. CRAVENS. But the whole act starts out with that conclusion, and the whole act itself is based upon the understanding that a valid warrant of deportation has been issued, which necessarily presupposes that the alien has so conducted himself as to necessitate deportation under existing law.

Mr. SEIBERT. Well, it presupposes, Mr. Chairman; as I say, the presupposition there is not carried out by the court. If we could depend on the court to use judgment on the basis of his presupposition, I would agree with you. But there is so much of the ex parte issuance of writs and injunctions that brings about bad situations in this country.

I want to say now that I understand that Judge Tuttle signed, on the day the strike was declared ended on a compromise between the company and the union in the Ford situation, that Judge Tuttle had issued an injunction citing the Communist Party in the United States. Now, where was there any proof that the Communist Party was in control of that organization out there? It was the Congress of Industrial Organization and the automobile workers.

Mr. CRAVENS. That is entirely beyond what we are doing.

Mr. SEIBERT. That shows you how silly some of the opinions coming out of our courts are today. As much as I respect the courts.

all.

Mr. CRAVENS. Well, I do not agree with all the court decisions, at

Mr. SEIBERT. All right; and then there is a limitation to what the people will take. And we in Detroit feel that the Hobbs bill does not give the alien the proper protection.

Now, we in the State of Michigan have had a similar proposition to the National Alien Registration Act. Governor Brucker in 1931 signed the act. Now, the probate judge of one county Patrick H. O'Brien, took it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, I believe that is as far as he had to go with it, and had the act declared unconstitutional.

Based upon what, Mr. Chairman? Upon the very things that the Hobbs bill does, as well as the violations of the liberties of those aliens. It set up practically the same thing, a board of administration and registration, so-called, with certain quasi-judicial powers, and interlocked with the Attorney General to do the same job.

I do not think that a bill that is so controversial on its constitutional basis should be presented without having a complete research, and that the general public in America understands that bill and understand it implicitly. I cannot see any reason why a bill should be introduced and have a controversial question such as this constitutional restriction, such as the Hobbs bill, passed by Congress without being given fulĺ discussion upon it by the various sections of the country.

Now, I said we came here unprepared on this hearing because we did not know it was going to be held on this date. That is no excuse; in other words, I have got to come in prepared. But what we are trying to do here is to point out there should be clarification in the general language. I think that is highly desirable, and I think if this bill is enacted as it is, in its present form and it is not revised very drastically, then I am sure that the Supreme Court is going to kick it right out as soon as it is brought in as a test. And I do not see why we should spend all of the time in the enactment of a bill that is going to be kicked out when it goes to the Supreme Court, because it transgresses the constitutional rights.

That, Mr. Chairman, about sums up our situation and our side of the picture as far as the protection of aliens is concerned.

According to the Attorney General's letter here, that is in the previous hearings, or the proceedings of the previous hearings, it points out that certain-for instance, here it is on page 8, item 1 [reading]:

The long-standing policy of deporting undesirable aliens is rapidly becoming inadequate because of present world conditions. We have outstanding 8.091 warrants of deportation; of these, 6,249 cannot be executed because of conditions beyond our control, 3,947 of them having been issued against aliens whose native countries have refused to issue passports permitting them to return; and 2,302 of them being unenforceable because of transportation conditions. Of the aliens whose countries have refused to issue passports, 1,254 are natives of Russia.

And I notice that the previous gentleman here and the speaker that preceded him, left the impression that the United States was being overrun by Stalin's people. I want to point out here and now that out of 150 million people in this country, if 150 million people cannot protect themselves against a small minority, then we better start looking over the Constitution and revising it so that we can guarantee that protection.

Mr. CRAVENS. That is what this bill tries to do.

Mr. SEIBERT. Well, it does not do it, because there is no reason for it. You mean to say that 1,254 cases are out of all of the quota of immigrants from that country? Why, that is not even enough to pay any attention to. They talk about the alien situation. The only thing they are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, it is an organized program to open up the process where they can put the cheap labor that is imported under the immigration quotas, and against the organized forces of labor. That is all it is. It is an organized program by the American Legion. Thank you very much.

Mr. WEAVER. We will adjourn. We will have another meeting. We cannot hear all the witnesses on this subject today, and we will have another meeting Friday.

Mr. SEIBERT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, would you have the clerk of the committee send me the transcript?

Mr. WEAVER. I think we can. And if you want to put any further statement in, you might do that.

Mr. SEIBERT. That may be done; I don't know. I cannot speak for the organization.

Mr. WEAVER. Leave your address, and we will try to get it to you. Do you want to see it before it is printed?

Mr. SEIBERT. No.

Mr. WEAVER. The printed transcript will be available.

Mr. SEIBERT. It will assist my organization so we can have it available and study it.

Mr. WEAVER. We will be glad to have it sent.

(Whereupon, at 12:50 p. m., the hearing was adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)

SUPERVISION AND DETENTION OF CERTAIN ALIENS

FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1941

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, in the committee room at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Zebulon Weaver (chairman) presiding. Mr. WEAVER. The committee will be in order.

I regret that we do not have a full committee here this morning. Several members, I think, will be in a little bit later; but as it is getting late, I thought we might as well proceed.

It is rather a bad day to have it because of the fact so many of them are leaving town for the week end, and I do not know exactly just what to do. I am sure a number of persons present wish to be heard and get through with it promptly, and if that is satisfactory, we will go forward with it.

The first witness, I think, that I talked with, to be heard this morning was Mr. Allen, of New York, and he is here now, and we will be glad to hear him.

STATEMENT OF PAUL ALLEN, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE DESCENDANTS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Allen, if you will give the reporter your name and the organization you represent.

Mr. ALLEN. It is Paul Allen, national executive secretary of the Descendants of the American Revolution, 512 Fifth Avenue, New York. Mr. WEAVER. What, exactly, is the organization known as the Descendants of the American Revolution? What character or organization is it?

Mr. ALLEN. It is an organization of both men and women whose ancestors either fought in the Revolution or held some important post in civil life. We are extremely strict about our geneology, and there can be no doubt about that. I think, however, the best way to describe it, we consider the principles of our ancestors of vital importance today, not as a matter of prestige, but as responsibility and that we think in terms of the present and the future, rather than just the past, as so many people do who have illustrious ancestors; and we take them quite seriously-our ancestors-and what they stood for, and we want to see what they began not only preserved but extended and intensified. And we exert some discretion when we call on our ancestors because we find some we pull out from under

99