Mr. CRAVENS. Which bill, the original Hobbs bill?

Mr. TREVOR. No; the bill that is before the committee.

It seems to us that this creation of a new board is unnecessary, as it adds a great deal of expense to the Government, and there is nothing in the Constitution which justifies it in relation to this bill. We think it preferable that a representative of the Department of Labor be assigned to such a board, a representative of the Department of Justice, and, of course, a member of the Immigration Service of the United States. All of those various bureaus would attack the matter from their respective angles; one from the viewpoint of foreign agencies, one from the enforcement of law, and the other from the viewpoint of the alien problem in the United States. I think that that would be a more justifiable arrangement and would give on the whole a better service.

Mr. HOBBS. Of course, we want to set up the best board possible, and what the gentleman suggests may have a good deal of merit to it. I can tell you why we fixed it the way we did, though, and that is that we found under the President's reorganization order the_Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice, and we recognized the fact that it ought not to be wholly an intramural board, because that would be delegating this administrative power to one branch or one department of the Government, which would have excluded, to some extent at least, the State Department, and the Immigration Service as a separate branch of the Department of Justice, from that full participation in the deliberations of the Board which are now provided. Therefore this Board was created, not as an intramural board to be set up by appointment of the Attorney General, but was to be set up to represent the Government, the Nation, the alien, and the citizen as a quasi-judicial body, to be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, so that they might take everything into consideration, and so that it would not be a Department of Justice creature, so that the Department of State could be heard, so that the Immigration Service could be heard, and so that the law-enforcement divisions of the Department of Justice could be heard, and so that it would be really and truly an independent, fair tribunal. Now, those are the reasons that actuated me in drafting the bill the way it is. Now, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that those were the reasons, and to get your criticism.

Mr. TREVOR. I appreciate the high purpose of the Congressman in creating this board, and I understand fully his intentions, but I think that it is going to complicate the situation. I think it is unnecessary, and I think it is really at variance with some of the existing statutes, which will have to be revised if it is set up in this way.

My own feeling would be, sir, that it would be quite all right for the Attorney General just simply to take the place of the Secretary of Labor in administering the law. You are probably aware that in section 19 of the act of 1917, toward the close of the section, there are found these words:

In every case where any person is ordered deported from the United States under the provisions of this act or any law or treaty, the decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final.

I think that, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hobbs, is in accord with the universal practice of nations. Deportation is exclusively an executive

function. An alien is in the country as a guest, and if he violates the privileges which have been accorded to him, he waives his rights, and from that standpoint should be deported, and that, I think, has been the policy of Congress in the formulation of the various immigration

statutes.

Mr. HOBBS. I agree with that 100 percent, but there has been no change in that.

Mr. TREVOR. You understand, sir, that I would not start to argue on a matter of this kind, because I do not think it deals really with the fundamentals.

Mr. HOBBS. I am not seeking to get your view on the main issue you are here speaking on, but solely because of the profundity of your research, to get your criticism. We want to make this bill the best bill possible. This committee has a reputation at stake, and any criticisms are welcome, because we want to make it the best bill possible. Let us get back to the creation of the board. You say it is a departure from precedent, but you do not say it ought not to be done. You say you would constitute it in a different way. I am questioning whether an intramural governmental board would be as good as an independent quasi-judicial board, subject to the approval of the Senate. That is the only thing between us now. In the best of spirit, I must ask you to tell me in what way you think that a strictly governmental board within the several departments would be better.

Mr. TREVOR. I think it would tend to be more efficient. I think a board such as you have contemplated, and you want me to be frank about it

Mr. HOBBS. Surely.

Mr. TREVOR. I think that such a board will be a target for appointments by various elements in the community, who hope to so pack that board that it will respond to their particular views. I think it would be just as undesirable that someone representing my organization should be a member of that board as I do a representative of the element that previously appeared here this morning, and I think that confidence in the Department of State, and general public confidence in the administration of our Government would justify the belief that if we get the right people in the succeeding section of this bill, it is not really so material how that board is constituted, but I think it would be preferable if it were kept out of politics, and I think it would be kept out of politics if it were handled in the way that I suggest, rather than the one that seems to meet your particular approval. Mr. HOBBS. Do you not think the advice and consent of the Senate is a safeguard against the appointment of some person like a member of your organization or like a member of Dr. Knox's organization? Mr. TREVOR. To a certain extent, but only to a certain extent. Mr. HOBBS. Do you not think the responsibility of the President to appoint an impartial and fair tribunal can be relied upon?

Mr. TREVOR. I want to be perfectly respectful, but I think the maintenance of the Secretary of Labor for 8 years in the administration of this serious alien problem does not tend to bring me to that belief. Mr. HOBBS. All right, sir.

While we are on this subject, and there is no hurry, you have all the time you need, so overcome your impatience, please, do you not think that the appointment which you advocate of a member of the board from the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be

advisable in view of the fact that they are the initiators of the deportation proceedings, that they are the prosecutors in deportation proceedings, and that they are at present the judges in deportation proceedings? Do you not think it would be rather unwise to have such a person, the initiator, the prosecutor and the judge, as a member of this board that is to sit in final judgment upon these questions? Mr. TREVOR. As a practical matter, Congressman, I think this board has got to be guided by the information which is laid before it by the Immigration Service. I think, if you care to go into the matter deeply, you will find that, as a rule, the only source of information regarding the alien is the alien himself, and the best contact with the alien is the Immigration Service. I think this board must and will be guided very largely in its decisions by the Immigration Service, and I think, therefore, the creation of this new arrangement to which, as I say, I do not object as a citizen or on behalf of my organization, but I merely say I think you are making an unnecessary complication to accomplish the purpose that I believe every Member of the committee and that I personally and my organization have at heart, the better administration of this problem.

Mr. HOBBS. I want to assure you, Colonel Trevor, that during the 6 months I worked in the preparation of this bill down in the Department of Justice, I became every day more and more convinced that the Attorney General's assurance is correct, that it is utterly impossible for him, in addition to all of his other multifarious duties, to do this job, and I have come to the conclusion quite positively that he needs this board to do it, because he has got the Land Division which is acquiring millions of acres of land for Federal projects of all kinds, and whereas the land in question may be bought for $2 an acre average. as it has been in the Forest Service, the Forest Service is making available those lands for military purposes to build a $30,000,000 plant on that type of land. So, it becomes increasingly important that the title to lands acquired by the Federal Government, even by gift, be carefully scrutinized.

Then, you take the various branches of the Department of Justice, including the F. B. I., which is being greatly expanded and multitudinous cases being presented for the Attorney General's approval one way or the other every day, and take all of the different divisions there, the Anti-Trust Division, and the Solicitor General's Division with the actual litigation involved, when you sit there and see the flood of work that comes over the Attorney General's desk for his approval, I am inclined to agree with him that this Board is absolutely necessary. If so, then, we are down to the question as to how it should be constituted. Now, what I wanted to ask you is why you think it is unnecessarily complicating it?

Mr. TREVOR. I think, sir, that I would limit the scope of this bill to such an extent by some modifications of succeeding sections that my problem would be simplified in that way.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. TREVOR. But, as I say, Congressman, I think the constitution of that board is one of the minor details of the problem.

Mr. HOBBS. All right, sir. Then, in raising the balance of your second observation are points that this would be a deprivation of the Secretary of Labor's important power of a final decision, which, of course, now inures to and is vested in the Attorney General, there is

nothing in this bill that repeals that section of the 1917 or 1918 acts, nor is it the intention to do so. I am in hearty accord with your views on that, and I am wondering if it is not simply because of the mention of habeas corpus writs in here that you think it has been changed? Mr. TREVOR. No, sir; that did not interest me at all.

Mr. HOBBS. Where has it been changed, then? Where does this change the power of the Attorney General to make final decision in a deportation case?

Mr. TREVOR. The proposed powers accorded to this Board are pretty broad, and they extend so far as to give actual power to suspend de-. portation of an alien who is mandatorily deportable under existing

statutes.

Mr. HOBBS. That is right.

Mr. TREVOR. That seems to me a substitution of the Board's power for that of the Attorney General, whereas it was formerly in the hands of the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. HOBTS. In the first three titles of the bill I admit that you are correct, but in IV you will notice that is lodged in the Attorney General.

Mr. TREVOR. I should like to deal with that title separately.

Mr. HOBBS. But we are talking now about your criticism, or saying where they changed the powers of decision, rather, of the head of this Immigration and Naturalization Service, or, rather, of the Cabinet Member who is in charge of it. Now, what I want to get is your reason for that remark. I honestly do not think that there has been any change whatsoever.

Mr. TREVOR. I thought the Congressman was in agreement with me. that in the first three titles I was correct in the assumption that there was an allocation of power, but it is not clearly set forth as the bill is now drafted.

Mr. HOBBS. All we have done is to leave the final powers of decision. to the Board instead of to the Attorney General, but in the fourth wo leave it to his final, irrevocable decision, except a habeas corpus which we cannot suspend, of course, being in the Constitution.

Mr. TREVOR. In regard to section 3. generally, I do not think that there is any particular comment I wish to make. I think that in general it is all right. Section 4 brings in the first authority for detention. Now, it seems to me that this deals with the class of aliens who might properly be detained only for such reasonable time as might be necessary. Assuming that the Board should have the power to suspend it, instead of requiring that they be held for 90 days, because, in the case of some of the aliens, it is possible that deportation would not be possible, and I imagine that the Immigration Service would know immediately who should be detained. If you arbitrarily put a man in a detention camp for 90 days, it does not seem to me to improve the situation over what it is now. I mean it just imposes a nenalty on somebody anyway who is going to be loose at the end of 90 days. It is the sort of punishment that may or may not be appropriate. It may be wholly inadequate, or, on the other hand, it may be too much. Do you see my point?

Mr. HOBBS. I really do, but I want to challenge some of your predicate, because the Supreme Court in three specific instances, namely the One Lung case, and some kind of a Fu case, has specifically held that

318230-41-ser. 2, pt. 2——3

you are wrong, that it is no punishment, and it is not imprisonment, so please eliminate that talk, it is just not so.

Mr. TREVOR. Please do not misinterpret my remark, and I know that you won't, Mr. Hobbs. I did not mean to say in law that it was imprisonment. I know in law it is not, but the man who is put in a detention camp or held in an immigration station is just as much in jail as if he were imprisoned.

Mr. HOBBS. I doubt that, but then let that pass.

Mr. TREVOR. Well, I mean so far as I am concerned.

Mr. HOBBS. He is just a parlor boarder of your Uncle Sam's. He is not subject to any restrictions as to being put in a cell or locked up, or being put out to hard labor. He is merely detained in aid of deportation in an immigration station. There is no deportation camp here, and there is no concentration camp, and there never has been.

Mr. TREVOR. I am not disputing the fact that a good many of them ought to be there, Congressman, but I am just wondering whether 90 days is necessary in some of the cases where they are going to be released.

Mr. HOBBS. The key there that unlocks the meaning of that section is that phrase, "pending deportation."

Mr. TREVOR. Yes.

Mr. HOBBS. We are not inflicting this 90 days' deprivation of perfect freedom on anybody to punish them. What we are doing is saying that where, in the discretion of the Board, or the Immigration Service initially, there is a reason to believe that within a reasonable time there may be effectuated the deportation of an alien who has been found guilty of some of these other things that make him undesirable, that 90 days is the limit within which you can detain him in aid of deportation for the purpose of effectuating it. Now, then, in another class of worse offenders, it is 1 year, and for another class it may be permanent.

Mr. TREVOR. I think, in connection with these minor detentions, if I may call them that, it would have been well to have included in this bill the provisions which was formerly embodied in the bills that came down from the Labor Department as the Kerr bill and the KerrCoolidge bill, which authorized an immigration inspector to hold an alien whom he believed to be in the country illegally in detention for, I think, 24 hours, pending authority from Washington justifying the belief that an immigration warrant for deportation would be issued. As I understand it, a good many aliens who are held, I think, had to be held but without warrant of law, because there was not any other way to deal with them. When you find an alien near the border, he would probably depart, and you would not be able to lay hands on him again. I think possibly the Immigration Service would advise you as to whether it would not be well to incorporate such a provision. Mr. HOBBS. I have talked that over with them at length, and I know their views, and I think they are in accordance with me on that subject, that it is utterly unnecessary and it is an artificial limitation upon a power that already exists and which the Supreme Court has held in many cases exists. They go on and say, as you know, because you are just as familiar with the decisions as I am, that it is inconceivable to think of the power of deportation without the power to detain in aid thereof for as long as may be reasonably necessary, and you remember the case where it was held that where there was no war,