Mr. HOBBS. Not at all.

Mr. ALLEN. You don't understand that?

Mr. HOBBS. No, sir. The fact of the thing is that it says the first thing he has got prove is he was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant prior to January 1, 1941.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, all of those people who are here, regardless of how many, could have their entrance charged against some future quota, if it took 10 years from now?

Mr. HOBBS. If they were here prior to January 1, 1941, and have lived here constantly ever since, and are people of good character and can prove that to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, and prove these other things, they can.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, if there are enough people here to take up the quota for the next 10 years who come within the classification which you mention, then it would be possible to take up the quota for 10 years, or for 20 years.

Mr. HOBBS. Not exactly; they could take up 50 percent of it.
Mr. ALLEN. From now on.

Mr. HOBBS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you. May I ask Mr. Hobbs another question? In title III-I made the statement that it was good-if you would strike out all after the word "admission" in line 24, on page 13, and strike out after the word "deportation" in line 9, page 14. Will the gentleman agree with me that under those two sections it would be possible to freeze Mr. Bridges here, or anybody else in his class? Mr. HOBBS. Certainly, I do.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. I want to say, however, that the reason I wrote that language in there was simply this: That each one of our 21 secret-service organizations, and the F. B. I., it is of course known, have their agents operating in these organizations, and my ideas was that where the Army, for instance, through its Intelligence Service, or the Navy, through its, has employed a German to join this Fascist Party in order to be one of our valued sources of information, as an espionage agent of the United States

Mr. ALLEN. I understand the gentleman's statement

Mr. HOBBS. I think it would be utterly absurd not to leave that loophole in there or some similar language, which would enable us to refrain from deporting our own secret-service agents who are members of these different parties.

Mr. ALLEN. But I disagree, Mr. Hobbs, that it would be necessary to leave the loophole in the act by which Bridges and his kind could stay here. I see your view, all right, but let us not leave a loophole to keep Bridges here.

Mr. HOBBS. Of course, as I say, you have no confidence in the Attorney General. I have implicit confidence that he is just as much in favor of the deportation of Bridges as I am, and I want to make the prediction also that Bridges will be deported. I have read the evidence.

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I hope he will.

Mr. HOBBS. I believe you do. I believe you are absolutely right

about that.

Mr. WEAVER. The committee thanks you, Mr. Allen. We appreciate your statement.

There is one other witness, I believe, Mr. Harrison,

STATEMENT OF EARL G. HARRISON, FORMER DIRECTOR OF ALIEN REGISTRATION

Mr. HARRISON. My name is Earl G. Harrison, Packard Building, Philadelphia, Pa.; home address, Rose Valley, Pa., but for purposes of identification I should say that I served as director of alien registration during the registration period. About the middle of January this year I resigned from that position and returned to the practice of law, but I was retained in the Department on a voluntary basis as special assistant to the Attorney General in connection with alien registration matters, so that I am very much interested in this whole subject. I come to Washington about once a week now to keep in touch with that work, and will do so until our final report is ready for submission to Congress.

I want to say at the outset I disagree most heartily with one statement particularly that was made by Mr. Starnes. He said that the provisions of title II of the Smith Act did a great deal to destroy the effectiveness of the registration features of the act, as contained in title III. I think I can speak as a result of experience in that matter, and I should like to assure the committee that the presence of the provisions of title II had a great deal to do with the effective handling of the registration. The members of the committee know how successful that registration was. There was all kinds of cooperation received on the part of the press and the radio, citizenship groups and organizations, and as a result the noncitizens who were here stepped forward and put themselves on record, giving us their identification through fingerprints. It was largely because we could give some assurance of fair treatment, individual treatment, depending on the circumstances of the case, that we were able to assure people, particularly if their records were good, they had nothing to fear, and they should come forward and comply with the act, and I am confident almost all of them have complied with the act.

Mr. CRAVENS. What were the provisions of title II you refer to? Mr. HARRISON. Title II is practically the same as the first part of title IV of this act; and there seems to be a good deal of loose thinking about it now. All that title IV, section 401 does, as I read it, is to extend to another group, worthwhile considering, it seems to me, who would be available for the exercise of the Attorney General's discretionary power, that is, to suspend deportation. Title II of the Smith Act would exclude or would not be applicable to lone persons, bachelors, for example, persons without relatives or persons depending upon them economically. This would broaden the Attorney General's powers to that extent, but to that extent only.

Mr. HOBBS. In other words, this whole section 401 is identical in purpose with section 2 of the Smith Act, except that under the Smith Act the Attorney General would have no discretion to ameliorate the situation of a bachelor, when under this act he would; and, second, this act further extends his clemency to a second group, those who are here illegally because of their desire to escape the conditions in Europe.

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly.

Mr. HOBBS. Those are the only two changes.

Mr. HARRISON. I do not agree, either, with the statement that title IV of this act is the heart of the act. I think all of the titles are extremely important. It seems to me we have two big problems before us at the moment, from the standpoint of the alien population, and I am very glad to be able to appear here and say that I am heartily for the substitute bill, the bill as you now have it, and feel that there is nothing inconsistent in the provisions of that bill with what was said to the alien groups in an effort to have them comply with the registration requirements.

The Supreme Court said in passing on the Pennsylvania Alien Registration Act, and referring to the national act, that the Congress really sought a middle ground. It was the first time that aliens ever had been set aside and dealt with as a separate group. But, on the other hand, the Congress indicated that that was to be done in a friendly manner, and as a result it was hoped we would not stir up any feeling, any fear, on the part of that large group of people. Now, after that registration has been accomplished, we have two large problems remaining. What to do with those aliens who are here who are deportable, and particularly those who are deportable for having committed serious offenses, when, as a practical matter you cannot carry out deportation warrants and orders. That is a large problem and an extremely important problem, even though we are dealing with a comparatively small percentage of the entire alien group. And the second large phase of the problem is that, as Judge Hobbs pointed out, we have a number of people here who came here to escape conditions elsewhere and who are dreadfully concerned about the fact that they cannot go back to their country. Some of them would not be able to go back, and yet they feel themselves ineligible for citizenship here. What I am saying, therefore, is that titles I, II, and III, are equally important with title IV, and there is no reason to focus so much of our attention on title IV of the act, even though it is important.

It is rather curious to me that the two speakers this morning favor the bill as originally written, and yet in that bill the Attorney General would be given the discretionary power to detain deportable aliens, and when we get over to the bill as written, the gentlemen seem to object to title IV because of the discretionary powers which are vested in the Attorney General. I think it would be desirable all around to have a Board such as contemplated by title I, which would perform quasi-judicial duties, rather than have an administrative board made up of the present people, people presently in the employ of the Government. I think it would be much better to have a board that would operate in that independent fashion. To me it is that very feature of it which makes all the difference in the world, and makes untrue the charge which has been made before this committee by some, that this will create concentration camps.

I thoroughly believe that concentration camps cannot possibly be considered as in contemplation here, in view of the procedure which is provided in this act as drawn.

And I do not think we make any mistake when we provide for due process of law. Here there is a proceeding under which a hearing would be held, and there is a proceeding for appeal, and this is as it should be.

Following up what Mr. Hobbs said, I want to present my view to the committee that there is no attempt made here to change the habeas corpus rule. It seems to me to be clear that the retention of the present rule where a review is contemplated is proper, and that it is for the courts to determine whether orders were made upon sufficient evidence, and the cases to which he referred clearly indicate that that is the case, and it seems clear to me that no change in that regard is intended here under section 6 of title I.

Mr. CRAVENS. Where is the necessity for having it in at all?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, Judge Hobbs made that point. He rather doubted the necessity of it. I do not think it is particularly necessary except to make it very clear that the habeas corpus rule is to apply here specifically to the situations covered by this act. If there had been any intention to change the rule I think some such phrase as "preponderance of the evidence" would have been used.

Mr. HOBBS. Weight of the evidence.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes; weight of the evidence. But as it is written now, it seems to me it would retain and make applicable specially to these proceedings that rule.

Mr. CRAVENS. Your view is that section 6 merely reiterates and restates the present law?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; that is my feeling.

Mr. CRAVENS. And to make it very clear that it is applicable to this type of case?

Mr. HARRISON. That would be the advantage, it seems to me, in having it here.

Mr. HOBBS. I will ask you there that if you do not think that if each one of these references to the habeas corpus, and the right of the court on habeas corpus to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, simply declares the rule as it now exists, and if all of them were stricken from the bill it would not change the law one iota.

Mr. HARRISON. That is my view, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. In other words, you think it is a wise policy to have these provisions in there in order to hold out to the aliens a promise that his rights, as now recognized by lawyers, but which may not be recognized by the aliens, will be subserved and regarded.

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly, sir.

Mr. CRAVENS. This is merely a reassurance that they are not going to be deprived of any rights they have under the present law, and which we could not take away from them, if we wanted to.

Mr. HARRISON. That is right, and having worked with this group, as I did, and having received hundreds and thousands of letters telling me touching personal history and problems, I feel to do so is a very wise thing. We can be just as determined to protect our national safety as we feel we ought to be, but at the same time there are meritorious cases, there are cases of people whose loyalty can be established and whose records are good, and to give those people the assurance that such a thing will give, in my opinion is very well worth while doing.

Mr. CRAVENS. In other words, among lawyers you wouldn't need that section in there, but in order to make these people feel at ease and know they are not being deprived of any rights, you state it again.

Mr. HARRISON. Exactly, just as in the Alien Registration Act we were able to say to aliens who thought, "Oh, well, now we must be regarded as criminals, because they are going to fingerprint us; they are not fingerprinting citizens, but they want to fingerprint us. We are separate and apart from the rest of you"-we were able to say that was not the purpose of the alien registration bill; there is a distinction between citizens and noncitizens, but if that were considered to be the attitude of the Congress, why would it vest discretionary power in the Attorney General so that personal consideration, individual treatment could be accorded to those who are deserving of it?

To come back briefly, I think it is extremely important that we do set up some machinery for the detention of aliens who are deportable and who cannot, by reason of world conditions, be deported at the present time. I like the procedure which is contemplated by titles İ, II, and III. A great many people seem to think this act applies to all aliens, and of course that is not so. It applies mainly to those who are deportable for very serious offenses. We do have the possibility that aliens who are deportable by reason of the circumstances of their entry here, or over-stay, can be detained for 90 days, with the possibility of an additional 60, under title I, but equally important and more important sections are to be found in titles II and III. In title II, those who are deportable and have been guilty of a serious offense, it seems to me the power should exist to detain those persons for a reasonable period, and that, of course, is the purpose of title II. Title III, with the language as written now, it seems to me is something that is very much needed. We do not have sufficient powers at the present time to exclude, and the use of the specific language, that is, the reference to specific organizations is needed at the time, and in my opinion, fully warranted. On the other hand, for the reasons which have been pointed out, we certainly ought to retain the saving language at the end. In my opinion title IV could not possibly cover the Bridges case at the present time.

I want to mention one or two other points that have been brought out by other speakers who have been appearing in opposition to the legislation. In the first place, it has been said that we would be setting up something in the nature of an inquisition by requiring persons who are deportable and under warrant of deportation to report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. I cannot take that seriously at all. It seems to me we are fully justified in having per sons, a limited group to which this act would apply, under the close supervision of the Service, and required to report from time to time, so that methods of treatment, methods of supervision might properly be used by ourselves.

I want to say a word or two on the quota system that has been emphasized so much here today. According to the figures that I have, during the 5-year period that was mentioned 27,801 more visitors left than came into the country. That is to say the exodus was greater than the incoming of visitors during that period.

Again, on the quota, we must keep in mind, although there was a good deal of discussion by the two preceding speakers, and an attempt was made to indicate that a great many people are just waiting until this act is passed, when there will be a flood of incoming people to take advantage of this act-I think that has been thoroughly answered by Judge Hobbs when he referred to the date of January 1, 1941. But