where the seas were open and the sea lanes free, that detention for 4 months on the pretext that they could not obtain passage back to England was an unreasonable length of time. Therefore I think that 24 hours would be a limitation rather than an authorization.

Mr. TREVOR. I was really referring, Congressman, to a great many conversations I had with the late Commissioner McCormack, who seemed to feel that such a provision was necessary. If the Attorney General advises you now that it is not necessary, I withdraw my suggestion in view of the rulings of the Court.

Mr. HOBBS. I want to say this in charity of and in all consideration for anybody's opinion. I esteem the gentleman highly to whom you refer, and I esteem his opinion, but there never has been anyone who was administering a law in an executive department who did not desire specific authorization by law for the acts that he performed, or that he might conceive to be necessary, but the Supreme Court has made that distinction. It is the same distinction exactly that you find if you go over into another field, the same distinction that there is between a will and a deed. A will does not take effect eo instanter, but at the death of the testator, and therefore you have a power that might be shifted, rather than a specific one. So it is in this case. The Supreme Court says that it is inherent in the concept of the deportation power, and that it is in the administration of the sovereign power of deportation that it became necessary of itself, of course, one who is administering that power would like to have specific authority, so that it would not be up to his own judgment in the matter. I think that is all the distinguished gentleman that you quoted meant, that he would rather have his power clearly defined by statute.

Mr. TREVOR. The impression was that he felt that the immigration agent who picked up a man on the street, whom he had reason to believe was in the country illegally, and detained him for maybe 24 hours, was doing it without warrant of law. That was the late Commissioner's opinion. I questioned it at the time, but I deferred to the fact that he was the officer in charge, but that criticism which you make was never advanced against the question, so I assumed the Department still held the view that it was desirable to have some such section in a bill such as you have drafted here.

Mr. HOBBS. You may be right in the case of an arrest without a warrant.

Mr. TREVOR. That was an arrest without a warrant, sir.

The next is section 5, and I am again taking exception to this.

Mr. HOBBS. Section 5?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes, section 5, on page 8.

Mr. HOBBS. Now, you are going back, then, to title I?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes, title I, section 5.

Mr. HOBBS. All right, sir.

Mr. TREVOR. There is an exception made here which I think puts aliens in the privileged class. You will note, sir, in line 25, that aliens would be exempted for the commission of a crime not connected with their entry into the United States. In other words, if an alien. committed perjury or bribed an immigration agent or forged immigration papers, he would not be regarded as a criminal and that thereafter these detentions that are authorized under section 5 of the bill would hot apply to him.

Now, as a matter of fact, a citizen of the United States who committed perjury or forgery, or who bribed an official, would go to jail. Now, here it is not ordered that he be prosecuted for the crime which he has committed to enter the United States. On the other hand, a citizen of the United States certainly would be prosecuted for the commission of such a crime. Now, to exempt aliens who are guilty of really heinous offenses from the just penalty for their offenses, it seems to me is utterly unreasonable.

Mr. HOBBS. What words have that effect, Mr. Trevor?

Mr. TREVOR. The last part of the page, on page 8, section 5 [reading]:

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall have authority, upon the order of the Board, to detain without bail, but not a hard labor, for a period of not exceeding 1 year from the date on which the alien is taken into custody under such order, any alien subject to supervision and detention under this title whose deportation is based in whole or in part upon conviction, or admission by the alien of the commission, of a crime not connected with his entry into the United States.

Now, I think that is wholly an improper exception to make on behalf of the aliens. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are thousands of aliens in the country today who have committed these crimes, and they are given every possible latitude to remain here. The man who comes into the country bribing an official of the United States or forging papers is utterly unfit for citizenship, and he is entitled to no consideration whatsoever. He is the one who has contributed in large measure to the hardship cases.

I have a list here, sir, of cases that I have analyzed of aliens who have been in this country for a period of 7 years, and this really anticipates my comment on a later section.

Mr. HOBBS. You are talking now about section 401?

Mr. TREVOR. Yes. The number of aliens whose readmission has been authorized by the Secretary of Labor, under the 7-year proviso, provided they should be found to be admissible except for the moral turpitude offenses, increased in each case from about 1936 to March 15, 1939, and I believe there were 416 aliens allowed to go out of the United States who had been resident here for 7 years and then reenter without any criticism as to their being excluded under the law, mandatorily excluded under the law from entry, on that ground:

There were 232 who committed perjury; 132 committed perjury or forgery; 1 that committed forgery and conspiracy; 8 that committed perjury; 28 guilty of theft; and one guilty of statutory rape. I do not think it is necessary for me to go on enumerating them, and I have cited enough of these cases to show the point of view that we have in regard to these people, but, as I say, while really that relates to a particular later section, I think it is pertinent to this matter I have been discussing.

Mr. HOBBS. I want to assume full responsibility for that. That is my phraseology. I wrote every word of it, and I just disagree with the distinguished gentleman, slightly, with regard to that, but I am cordially in harmony with his views generally.

My idea in putting that into the original Hobbs bill, and my idea in putting it in there was this, that a man who is on the outside of America looking in, many of whom cannot speak a word of English and who know nothing of our laws, when one of the racketeers in the

old country comes to him and offers him a passport for $200, and he wants to come over here so desperately as I would if I were there, I do not think that there is moral turpitude involved in that crime of perjury or forgery in getting in, such as there is moral turpitude involved in the commission of crimes of other kinds.

Mr. TREVOR. May I just at that point interject one remark?
Mr. HOBBS. Yes.

Mr. TREVOR. You have carried that principle so far as to exempt aliens who have committed a crime in obtaining naturalization. În other words, aliens who have been in the country for some time are extended that same exemption, which, if a citizen committed that offense would land them in jail without any reasonable doubt.

Mr. HOBBS. This bill in no part whatsoever exempts them from prosecution for the offenses they have committed which are punishable under the law, but you will note that Congress has never passed a law which makes false swearing, which would be perjury under other circumstances, which makes it perjury when committed in aid of naturalization.

Mr. TREVOR. Excuse me, sir. The act of 1924 I think is very specific on that point.

Mr. HOBBS. I do not mean to challenge anything that the gentleman says, but I would like the citation. I do not think that is so. Mr. TREVOR. May I have time to look it up?

Mr. HOBBS. Yes; I would be delighted to have you do so.

If I may go on for the record while you are looking that up, I should like to point out that this is only when they can prove good character in this country.

Mr. TREVOR. Well, sir, that is a rather academic proposition. A man who has committed perjury or forgery and a few other illegal things might be able to produce witnesses there to testify to his fine character.

Mr. HOBBS. Possibly, but there again the fact that he can obtain some witnesses to swear to it does not amount to proof.

I want you to put yourself in the place of one of those aliens who is seeking to come to America. He wants to come so desperately, and he does not know our law, and he does not know our language. I know many of them personally who did not have the slightest conception that they were committing any offense. They merely signed on the line where they were told to sign, and they signed the name that they were told to sign. They signed an affidavit that was prepared and in many instances read to them in English only, when they did not understand one word of it. That is the henious offense which you denounce. I just think moral turpitude in such offenses is entirely lacking.

Mr. TREVOR. I have the greatest respect for you, as you know, Congressman; but that taxes my credulity a great deal, because a lot of those people live in countries where the laws are fairly comparable to our own laws, and they know that to commit perjury or forgery or to bribe an official is an offense.

Mr. HOBBS. I know of certain cases where they are as fine citizens as we have in this country, and they had not the remotest conception that they were committing any forgery or in any way at all committing a crime, nor that what they were swearing to was perjury.

Mr. TREVOR. I was engaged in a debate on the radio with a gentleman recently who held that same view. I said, "Do you mean to say it is all right to commit perjury to get into the United States?" This man shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well, he wanted to get in."

Mr. HOBBS. My attitude is that there are many instances where they did it in perfectly good faith, and in the absence of any moral turpitude whatsoever, and that it is not in a class with other crimes that do involve moral turpitude. We are not saying, "Here is a pat on the back," and "Go and do what you like in that regard in the future," but we are simply saying that where they are men of a good character, and have proven that to a board of competent jurisdiction in this country, they may be admitted.

Mr. TREVOR. Even to the point that they have been trying to secure naturalization by forgery and perjury?

Mr. HOBBS. I am not saying that they should not be prosecuted for the criminal offenses involved in those acts.

Mr. TREVOR. Yes; it would be desirable.

Mr. HOBBS. But I am saying that they shall not be deportable necessarily for that offense.

Mr. TREVOR. If my recollection is correct, the Congressman said that there was not any provision of law which made perjury an offense in the way in which we have been discussing it. Section 22 of the act of 1924 provides:

(a) Any person who knowingly (1) forges, counterfeits, or alters or falsely makes any immigration visas or permits or (2) utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any immigration visa or permit, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or who, except under direction of the Secretary of Labor or other proper officer, knowingly (3) possesses any blank permit, (4) engraves, sells, brings into the United States, or has in his control or possession any plate in the likeness of a plate designed for the printing of permits, (5) makes any print, photograph, or impression in the likeness of any immigration visa or permit, or (6) has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been adopted by the Secretary of Labor for the printing of immigration visas or permits, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b) Any individual who (1) when applying for an immigration visa or permit, or for admission to the United States, personates another or falsely appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or fictitious name, or (2) seils or otherwise disposes of, or offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, an immigration visa or permit, to any person not authorized by law to receive such document, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false statement in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

I think that covers the point.

Mr. HOBBS. I do not think so at all, sir. I said there was no law passed by Congress making such false swearing in aid of entry of naturalization perjury and there is not a word that you have read that does it yet. I stand by my statement. I do not say that it is not a felony, and I do not say that it is not punishable, but I say there is no such element in the crime of perjury.

Mr. TREVOR. Perjury?

Mr. HOBBS. You continually use the word that they have committed "perjury." Well, technically, they have not.

Mr. TREVOR. Technically?

Mr. HOBBS. Yes.

Mr. TREVOR. Well, Congressman, permit me to make some further research on that.

Mr. HOBBS. Yes, and make as many observations as you care to make, and I welcome them. If I am wrong, I will be glad to know it.

Mr. TREVOR, Congressman, wouldn't you interpret "or falsely makes any immigration visa or permit, or utters, uses, attempts to use". wouldn't you consider that as equivalent to forgery?

Mr. HOBBS. It may be equivalent to forgery. I did not say it was not, but you say they have committed perjury. I say they have not committed perjury, because perjury is a statutory offense as defined by law, and there has never been a definition in the perjury statute or elsewhere that makes that a crime that you have just read from the law of perjury.

Mr. TREVOR. Will the Congressman permit me to read section (c)? Mr. HOBBS. I shall be happy to have you do so.

Mr. TREVOR (reading):

Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false statement in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Is not that perjury?

Mr. HOBBS. No, sir; that is not perjury. It is a separate and distinct statutory offense under the immigration laws. Perjury can only consist of those things that are designated by statute. It may be a differ

ence without substance.

Mr. TREVOR. It would seem so to me.

Mr. WEAVER. The House is in session, and we have up the consent calendar today.

Mr. HOBBS. I think we ought to adjourn until later this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEAVER. Yes.

I was just wondering if you could complete your statement on Friday morning when we will have another meeting.

Mr. TREVOR. I shall be very happy to do so.

Mr. HOBBS. Friday morning?

Mr. WEAVER. Yes.

Mr. TREVOR. If you could make it tomorrow morning it would be more convenient.

Mr. HOBBS. Could we not do it this afternoon or tomorrow morning? Mr. WEAVER. I expect Congressman Allen and Congressman Starnes want to be heard, and they cannot be here until Friday.

Mr. HOBBS. But we can finish up with this witness this afternoon or

tomorrow.

Mr. WEAVER. I will be glad to.

Mr. HOBBS. Let us come back at 2 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. WEAVER. That is just impossible today. I will come back tomorrow morning.

Mr. TREVOR. It would be very much more convenient for me, sir, if you could hear me tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

Mr. HOBBS. All right, sir.