the President wants to do that, he should come here and procure authority. This is the place. We never empowered him or the State Department to nullify the immigration laws which opened the door to 150,000 immigrants. He slammed the door under the guise of the public-charge section. We should not surrender our rights as representatives of the people, to any executive branch of the Govern

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. Has that been done already under the law in existence?

Mr. CELLER. If it were used properly, I would say yes; but the way it has been exercised under the dictum of the President and the Secretary of State, that power has been absolutely abused. There is plenty of evidence of it, with many evidences of hardships. I can bring here many women to say how that power was abused. If the proper assurance is given by the State Department, then it will be well not to pass H. R. 7614; it will be absolutely unnecessary.

It is well that you have stirred up the muddy waters on the inequalities that have been developed as a result of the machinations that word is used advisedly-of the American consuls abroad. I don't want to bring a general indictment against our consuls; many are doing their duty, but there are renegades among them.

Mr. FREE. You say this only affects a few individuals if this law is passed. Is it not true that any woman who becomes naturalized, an American citizen for all time hereafter, could go abroad, marry a man, and then he would be brought into this country. Do you not start up an entirely new line of immigration?

Mr. CELLER. What of it? Suppose it does; you give the right to a husband, an American citizen, too; it does not start a line so far as he is concerned.

Mr. FREE. If these poor grils who have married these men, say, as they said here the other day, that they are going to bring these men here on a little pittance of $25 per week, I say it adds nothing to the economic structure of the United States.

Mr. CELLER. If the men were going to be bona fide public charges, I would agree with you; but that is not the case. The State Department is keeping out husbands who will not become public charges, who are not likely to become public charges, whose wives have money in the bank.

Mr. FREE. You will deprive some man here of a job.

Mr. CELLER. No; you won't. You will always have abuses, a little wrong, but if you are going to do a great right, it is well to do a little wrong. There is no perfect answer to this proposition. You can't pass a law to cover every contingency. You have been on the committee long enough, and I have appeared before this committee often enough, to know there is no perfect answer to this proposition. So realize that you are going to have some difficulties about it; but right the wrong, right the injustice here, even at the expense of some of those few insignificant cases that are bound to result as you have indicated.

Mr. JENKINS. You stated a while ago that the State Department had violated the law. In other words that the consuls have gone beyond their authority and violated the law. You don't mean that they have violated this law.

Mr. CELLER. The public charge law.

Mr. JENKINS. We had a bill up last year in the House which passed the Congress, which would alleviate that situation greatly. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Celler, that your testimony is based largely on the fact that you have always been opposing any restriction?

Mr. CELLER. I agree with the chairman that there must be some sort of restrictive measure, but don't put me in the category of wanting the door open wide all the time.

Mr. JENKINS. Did you ever vote in the House of Representatives for any restrictive measures?

Mr. CELLER. I certainly did. I have voted for deportation bills, and various restrictive measures, which were reasonable and desirable, as I saw that they would be. But that is beside the point.

STATEMENT OF MISS LAURA BERRIEN, LAWYER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Miss BERRIEN. Mr. Chairman, at its convention in September, 1931, the National Association of Women Lawyers passed a resolution calling on the Congress of the United States to equalize the naturalization laws between men and women, and because of that resolution I appear before you to-day to ask for the passage of a bill which will allow an American woman to bring her husband into the United States without the quota, on the same condition that men now bring their wives in without the quota, nothing more, nothing less. It seems to me that we should hardly have to ask you to do that.

I think the idea that there will be any considerable number of women who would engage in business which would be highly immoral, of marrying men and bringing them into this country is preposterous. I have heard it said, in fact I have seen it in the papers, that men have abused the privilege, and have brought women into this country, often for immoral purposes, but I don't think that would be any reason that women who behave and obey the laws should be denied the privilege of bringing in their husbands. I think if it were looked at in the light of an abuse, that it would seem to be a highly unprofitable business, because they could not marry fast enough to bring any considerable number of people in.

We want the same safeguards to protect us against fraud, against women, as we want protection against fraud in the case of men. Mr. JENKINS. Your organization is primarily interested in equality between men and women.

Miss BERRIEN. We are.

Mr. JENKINS. If we put a restriction on the men the same as it is on the women, I suppose you would not be here.

Miss BERRIEN. My association passed the resolution in the form as stated. I could speak for myself personally, but my association has taken no stand in that matter. I should say personally, I should hope there would not. A great deal has been said before Congress, not this bill but other bills, for the protection of the families. I would want the same rules applied to them. I would want accelerated time for women either for wives and husbands, or husbands and wives. Mr. JENKINS. You are not trying to put your organization on record as antirestrictive?

Miss BERRIEN. My association has taken no position at all on that

matter.

Mr. JENKINS. You have taken it only on naturalization, not on immigration?

Miss BERRIEN. My association has passed a resolution that in all matters of naturalization, nationality, citizenship, and immigration, that the same rules apply to men and women.

Mr. FREE. Have you opposed the bills cutting out the number coming into the country?

Miss BERRIEN. We have taken no position at all in that matter. Mr. GREEN. Do you think your association would be for this bill if it were apparent that there were none now being denied admittance under the quota law; in other words, if it reasonably developed in our hearings here that there were very few, if any, husbands and parents who can not come under the quota law?

Miss BERRIEN. We would want the law to be the same for women under the law. My association has taken the position that if a man can, under the law, bring in his wife and children, irrespective of the quota, then we ask that a wife can bring in her husband and children irrespective of the quota, but what the facts are is an entirely different matter; we are asking that the law be changed, that women have the same right. I think the national association has taken this position not only for the benefit of these women, but I should say that we take pride in the dignity of American citizenship, and we want to feel that when you make American citizenship alike for all people, you make American citizenship a more glorious thing for men as well as

women.

Mr. GREEN. You prefer to see a bill passed, even though it turned in several thousand women immigrants, what you want is equality, regardless of the consequences, you would be willing to let down the bars of immigration just so it included men ane women.

Miss BERRIEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to burden the committee, but will just put one witness on, and if the committee wants to hear any more, they can.

STATEMENT OF MR. MORDKE PERELMUTER (PERLMUTTER)

By the Chairman:

Question. Are you an American citizen?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Are you married?

Answer. Yes.

Question. When?

Answer. A year ago.

Question. Did you make out a petition through the Department of Labor?

Question. Have you got your bankbook here?
Answer. I have a statement from the bank.
Question. How much do you earn a week?
Answer. $40.

Question. Have you earned that for the last two years?
Answer. For the last year and a half.

Question. Did you supply that information to the consul?

Answer. Yes.

Question. How long ago did you supply that information to the consul?

Answer. About nine months ago.

Question. Did you give him a copy of your bankbook.

Answer. Yes.

Question. Did the consul ask you for a statement from a certified public accountant, as to your earnings?

Answer. I gave everything to the consul, he refused her again, sixtimes he refused.

Question. How many times did he invite her down to the consul's office?

Answer. About seven times.

Question. Is your wife a cripple?

Answer. She is healthy.

Question. Has she got any consumption, trachoma, or disease of any kind?

Answer. She was approved by a doctor, and everything was all right.

Question. What did the consul say in refusing her?
Answer. Public charge.

By Mr. Underwood:

Question. Was that the only ground of refusal?

Answer. Yes.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Where is she now.

Answer. Habana, Cuba.

By Mr. RUTHERFORD:

Question. Why did she go there?

Answer. Because I didn't want to go to Poland, I was too busy..

By Mr. CABLE:

Question. Are you living in the United States?

Answer. Oh, yes.

Question. Who do you live with?

Answer. Father and brother.

Question. How many do you support at the present time?

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Do you support your father?

Answer. No.

By Mr. CABLE:

Question. Do you take care of anyone excepting your wife?
Answer. No.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. How much do you send your wife?
Answer. $30 to $35 per month.

Question. Do you have a home here for her?
Answer. I have arranged for that.

By Mr. CABLE:

Question. For whom do you work?

Answer. I am a salesman for H. Eckstein, hosiery, 68 Archer Street, New York.

By Mr. MILLARD:

Question. How did you become a citizen?
Answer. On my father's papers.

By Mr. FREE:

Question. Where did you meet your wife?

Answer. I went to school with here in Poland, 12 or 13 years. Question. Then you had her come to Cuba, thinking it would be nearer, and went down there and married here?

Answer. Yes.

By Mr. RUTHERFORD:

Question. She has never been in this country.
Answer. No.

By Mr. JENKINS:

Question. How long have you been in this country?
Answer. Three years.

By Mr. CABLE:

Question. How long have you worked with this company?
Answer. Three years.

Question. Why did you come here?

Answer. I came here as a citizen under my father's papers.
Question. How old are you now?

Answer. I am 23.

Mr. JENKINS. I wish the report to show that no member of the State Department was called and interrogated with reference to this case.

The CHAIRMAN. The State Department has the evidence here, and it is open to contradiction.

Mr. HODGDON. This evidence is not pertinent to this bill (H. R. 5869), this is a case of an alien wife, not an alien husband, and we are not prepared at present to meet this.