Mr. GRIFFIN. Why, no.

You would then only have to touch on the essentials which are embodied in the oath of the intended citizen, to ascertain whether he is well disposed toward the Government, whether he loves this country, whether he is willing to support and defend the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't you ask him about his philosophical opinions?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No; why should you? My idea is to stop all these technicalities and put the question up bluntly to the proposed citizen as to whether or not he will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and not leave it, as I said, to a bureau of the Government to interpret the oath and try to ascertain the philosophic or religious views of the proposed citizen.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Well, go on.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, Herman Enns applied late in 1927. He was a Menonite.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are the Menonites from?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, they are all over the United States. There are about 100,000 all over the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the nationality of this man?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I don't know as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I asked where the Menonites came from. Mr. GRIFFIN. Poland. He applied late in 1927 or early in 1928. He wrote "Yes" in reply to the question 23; that he would be willing to take the oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the laws; but the examiner found out that he was a Menonite from a reference in the paper to a certain mission. The examiner, after probing him about his beliefs, finally got him to say "No" to his question, “Would you kill human beings," and he was forthwith rejected. Enns now lives in Kansas.

Now Jacob Beckett applied for his second papers

Mr. Box (interposing). Where was the Enns case tried, the case you have just mentioned; where was it tried?

Mr. GRIFFIN. In Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. And when?

Mr. GRIFFIN. In 1927 and 1928. The proceeding was long drawn out. Now, Jacob Beckett applied for second papers in 1928. To the bearing-arms question he replied, "I am willing to defend the country." The examiner asked him to explain the answer, and when he was asked if he would kill human beings he said, "No." This case was not disposed of until shortly before Christmas of 1929, when final papers were denied.

Now we come to the case of the Rev. T. S. King, a Methodist minister at Lake Arthur, La.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he from?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Lake Arthur, La.

The CHAIRMAN. What country is he from?

Mr. GRIFFIN. England.

The CHAIRMAN. When was this case?

Mr. GRIFFIN. November of 1929; yes. Now, when he came up for his naturalization the examiner proceeded along smoothly until the judge came to the question of war, and then the judge asked this question:

What did you do during the World War?

Answer. I served for three years in the British Army and spent 15 months

overseas.

He showed the judge his discharge papers verifying that statement. The JUDGE. Suppose the United States engaged in a war that you considered was wrong; what would be your attitude?

Answer. I would consider it my duty to protect and defend democracy.

The JUDGE. But, supposing you take a concrete case. If California wanted more territory and decided to seize some in Mexico and everyone was drafted for some form of service, would you object or be loyal?

Answer. I do not believe the United States would engage in such a war. The JUDGE. I do not want any convictions, sir. Under such circumstances, a war of aggression, would you object?

Answer. In all probability, I would. I would first have to consider my duty to God and to humanity.

The JUDGE. In other words, you can't subscribe under any and every condition to the doctrines, "My country, right or wrong, my country "?

Answer. No.

The JUDGE. Then you can not be admitted. What we want are citizens who are prepared to say, "My country, right or wrong, my country."

And so he was rejected.

And then the case of Jacob Beckett and the case of Clarence A. Offerman, of 24 Sheridan Avenue, Springfield, Ill. It seems that this case runs away back to 1924. He wrote me a letter on May 31, 1929, saying:

66

I am one of them to whom citizenship was denied. I am not a radical, but only a noncombatant. The chief naturalization examiner of Chicago asked me about the position I would take in time of war. I said I would serve the country in any capacity I could. "Would you take up arms?" he asked. I said: "Yes." "Would you shoot?" Yes." "Would you shoot to kill?" He said: Whom?" He was asked, "Your enemy." He replied, "I as a Christian have no enemies to kill." These were the questions of my examination. After some counseling with other men the chief examiner said to me: "You can not become a citizen of the United States when you do not answer this question with 'yes.'" That was in the year 1924. Because of my loyalty to the teachings of Jesus Christ citizenship is denied to me. Hoping your bill will pass so that conscientious citizens may be granted citizenship, I remain, Yours very truly,

CLARENCE A. OFFERMAN.

Mr. JENKINS. He did not say anywhere what he would shoot at when he said he would shoot, did he?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was he from?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Chicago, Ill.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean his nationality.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Why, I presume he is of German origin.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will look that case up.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Take the case of Mary Harris Boe, of Kenmare, N. Dak. Our colleague here, Mr. Sinclair, is very much interested in that case because Mrs. Boe lives in his district. That was a case which he will describe in full. Briefly, it is this: Mrs. Boe was born in the United States. She married a Swede or Norwegian. She lost her citizenship because at the time of her marriage the Cable Act was not in force. Subsequently her husband became a citizen. Then she applied for citizenship and upon her application this question came up as to whether she was willing to bear arms or not in the event of war, and she was denied citizenship although her husband is a citizen.

This last case, decided yesterday, by Judge Bondy, of New York, the case of Miss Everill Bland, of 100 Park Avenue, New York City

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What is her nationality?

Mr. GRIFFIN. She was a Canadian nurse. Miss Marks was her attorney in that proceeding and is one of our speakers, and I will leave the discussion of that case to her.

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RANKIN

I will call upon our former colleague, Miss Rankin. Miss Rankin represents the Association for the Prevention of War, and I would like her to make a few remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Just give the name, address, and business.
Miss RANKIN. Janet Rankin, from Montana.

The CHAIRMAN. And your address, please?

Miss RANKIN. No. 2839 Twenty-seventh Street NW., Washington, D. C.

I am speaking for myself. I also would like to say a word for the National Council for Prevention of War and would like to submit in the record the stationery of the national council, which gives all the facts and their stand on this question. At their annual meeting they passed the following resolution:

The council recommends indorsement of the proposal of Representative Griffin to divorce admission to citizenship from any requirement as to bearing arms. The CHAIRMAN. What is the National Council for Prevention of War?

Miss RANKIN. Well, it is a national council made up of affiliated organizations that are working for the progressive world organization, world-wide reduction of armaments by international agreement and world-wide education for peace.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this a national organization or international? Miss RANKIN. National.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking for the international organization?

Miss RANKIN. No; I am speaking for the national.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Is it an international organization?

Miss RANKIN. It is not.

Mr. JENKINS. Your organization espouses every movement that would outlaw war, does it not?

Miss RANKIN. I am not sure. I read you what it espoused.

Mr. JENKINS. Anyway, you do not mean by that that you are all opposed to war at all hazards and under all conditions, do you? Miss RANKIN. I would not like to speak for the national council. I would be perfectly willing to speak for myself as an individual. I can not answer for the council.

The CHAIRMAN. Find out what the national council is as separate from the international.

Miss RANKIN. This has nothing to do with international.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you say a few minutes ago?

Miss RANKIN. I said the national council for the prevention of war, and I said that the purposes of this organization were to work

41165-31-3

for progressive world organization and for world-wide reduction of armament by international agreements, like our London conference that was held a few weeks ago, and for world-wide education for peace.

Mr. JENKINS. It would be perfectly possible for a person to belong to your organization and still be a militant individual when we do get into war, would it not?

Miss RANKIN. I suppose it would.

Mr. JENKINS. Well, your organization does not stand absolutely for this proposal as set out by this bill, does it?

Miss RANKIN. I read you what the organization stands for. The council recommends indorsement of the proposal of Representative Griffin to divorce admission to citizenship from any requirement as to bearing arms. My first experience at a hearing as a Member of Congress was before this committee in support of a bill for independent citizenship for women. Thanks to the patience and continuous effort of this committee it is not necessary to appear in behalf of married women. Mr. Johnson and I seem to be the only ones still surviving. The committee very patiently worked on this measure until now it is not necessary to appear for that, but I am very much interested

The CHAIRMAN. We are still working on it, Miss Rankin, to fix up those that did not make the grade.

Miss RANKIN. I know you are, and I am very grateful for all you are doing. My interest in preventing war dates simultaneously with my interest in women's suffrage. I made my first speech for women's suffrage and for peace in Hoquiam in Congressman Johnson's district in 1910. Perhaps it would be too much to expect this committee to feel the same gratification over the acceptance of the general pact for the renunciation of war as I experience. I believe that history will show that this peace treaty, commonly called the Kellogg pact, marks a turning point in our civilization. To me it symbolizes the gateway to peace. However, all who have studied social adjustment appreciate the long period of transition from word to deed. To-day the treaty represents words which must eventually be expressed in deeds. Your committee has the opportunity of making one adjustment to the new situation-to perform one deed. A treaty, like any other form of law, depends largely on the public opinion for its acceptance and enforcement. A peace treaty must necessarily rely upon consent. It has happened that this treaty came in a miraculously short time and like some laws has preceded, rather than followed, the demand of public opinion. Therefore the crystallization of opinion and an understanding of its implications will come with the adaptation of our laws and our institutions to the reversal in our age-old attitude toward war.

I am here to-day to urge that the naturalization law be amended to conform to the present supreme law of the land. The situation resulting from the decision of the Supreme Court rendered before the formal proclamation of the ratification of the treaty makes new legislation necessary. There is a possibility that in the event of another case coming before the United States Supreme Court, it would be considered in the light of this treaty and a new decision rendered. However, in the meantime, a change in the law would prevent injustices in certain instances. Especially where individuals

hesitate to promise in advance what their actions will be under rnknown circumstances. Others believe that the supreme law of the land definitely outlaws war and others have religious and philosophical objections to killing their fellow man. If the law can be made to conform with the treaty without delay much agitation will

cease.

We are all aware that the Constitution of the United States, im clause 2, Article VI, provides that the Constitution and laws of the United States, and all treaties which are made and which shall be made under authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. On July 24, 1929, the President officially proclaimed the ratification of the pact for the renunciation of war by which the

nations

solemnly declare

*

that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversy and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another

And

agree that the settlement and solution of all disputes or conflicts never be sought except by pacific means.

shall

And he referred to the treaty as a part of the supreme law of the land and most sacred obligation of the governments which signed it. The oath of allegiance requires of an applicant for citizenship— That he will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

With the treaty a part of the supereme law of the land, it is now a violation of true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the United States to assert willingness to use war as an instrument of national policy, for war has been condemned and renounced in this solemn treaty.

Now, any questioning of an applicant as to whether they are willing to use war as an instrument of national policy is asking them if they are willing to disagree with the supreme law of the land, because whether we have public opinion back of this or not, it is the word of the law. So far this treaty has not been violated. Now, this ratification of the treaty has come since the Supreme Court decision. Now, these cases that are being decided against citizens are based on the Supreme Court decision.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean candidates for citizenship?

Miss RANKIN. Yes; candidates for citizenship. They are based upon the Supreme Court law rather than on the law itself.

Mr. JENKINS. You don't think for a minute, do you, that if this same case came up now, since the Kellogg peace past was ratified, the Supreme Court would decide it differently?

Miss RANKIN. Yes; I do think so; and I think there is no question in the world but that that will be the issue in all the cases before the Supreme Court in the future, and these cases are gradually coming there.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the treaty has not become words, but the oath of allegiance has.

Miss RANKIN. But the oath of allegiance says "the Constitution and the laws of the United States." The Constitution The Constitution says the treaty