Mr. MCGRADY. Exactly. The CHAIRMAN. And not only this problem, but many others. Mr. MCGRADY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement. Who is the next witness? MRS. BURNITA SHELTON MATTHEWS. I would like to have an opportunity to reply. The CHAIRMAN. At the next hearing. We will finish and dispose of it. Mr. HODGDON. For the benefit of the record, if there is any individual case or group of individual cases in which your committee is interested in connection with these bills, covering what the consuls have done, the department will be more than glad to get individual reports on each case for you, but to come up here and speak about 171 cases generally, for a witness to do that it is almost impossible. It would take too much of the committee's time. The CHAIRMAN. You were here at the last hearing and these witnesses testified and referred to certain conditions, and I thought you might like to enlighten this committee as to why these conditions existed. I am not talking about individual cases. I am talking about the general situation. (Whereupon, at 12.15 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.) EXEMPT FROM THE QUOTA HUSBANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZEN WIVES AND TO LIMIT THE PRESUMPTION THAT CERTAIN ALIEN RELATIVES MAY BECOME PUBLIC CHARGES THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1932 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the committee room, House Office Building, Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We are next going into a hearing on H. R. 5869, which I set for this day about two weeks ago, I think it was. Now, is there anybody that wants to be heard on it? Mrs. Matthews, I understand you want to be heard. STATEMENT OF MRS. BURNITA MATTHEWS Mrs. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the National Council of the National Woman's Party. When the committee last considered this bill, Mr. Hushing appeared and represented the American Federation of Labor as being opposed to the bill. I would like to call the attention of the committee to the attitude taken by the federation on this bill when it was up last year. This bill was section 5 of H. R. 14684, and at a hearing on January 25, 1931, page 20, Mr. Hushing, who appeared for the Federation of Labor, said they had no objection to this bill. I would like for the testimony of Mr. Hushing at that time to be inserted in the record. It is very short. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Is the bill before the committee now the identical bill that he testified on? Mrs. MATTHEWS. It is not identical, for H. R. 14684 had five sections. Section 5 in H. R. 14684 is identical with this bill. Mr. JOHNSON. Let me make that clear: The proposal that is now in a separate bill, is under consideration before this committee, was an incident in another bill of much more import, that was under consideration a year ago, with the restricting clauses; if there were to be those restrictions, there were to be these exceptions. Now, that would probably be the cause of the witness's attitude a year ago; that is; getting something and giving nothing. Mr. UNDERWOOD. That was why I wanted to determine whether or not the bill before the committee at this time-the provisions under the present bill we now have before us, were incorporated in the bill that he indorsed at that time. Mrs. MATTHEWs. Yes, they were. The provisions of the bill, H. R. 14684 were not as Mr. Johnson stated. It was not a case of 104058-32—7 93 the American Federation of Labor getting restrictions because the bill dealt with only one section of the immigration law. The other sections of 14684 dealt with the citizenship of children the same as the bill which you considered on January 7. Mr. Hushing appeared at that time and said the Federation had no objections to those provisions. Mr. JOHNSON. I am in error then. There is no need to go into the details now on a new situation, a new bill. Mrs. MATTHEWS. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Hushing's statement of January 23, 1931, be inserted in the record. Mr. JOHNSON. I object. The CHAIRMAN. The objection will be heard. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I do not think it ought to come in this record unless it is on the identical bill. Mrs. MATTHEWS. I have a copy of this hearing here. Mr. SCHNEIDER. If the testimony in that record refers to the subject matter in this bill specifically, it belongs in that hearing. Mr. DIES. He is just a witness; we do not care what he said a year ago. Mrs. MATTHEWS. I would like, may it please the committee, to also call attention to the testimony given by Mr. McGrady for the Federation of Labor on March 6, 1930, when he made this definite statement on behalf of the Federation of Labor: We are not in favor of discriminating against our American women, under our immigration laws, and not give them the same rights that our American citizens have. Women and men should stand on a parity under the laws relative to citizenship and naturalization. In the official report of the proceeding of the American Federation of Labor at its 1931 Convention there is not anything which authorizes a position contrary to the position the Federation took at the hearings on January 23, 1931, and on March 6, 1930. Mr. UNDERWOOD. May I inquire the purpose of incorporating the testimony at that time in this bill, unless it be for the specific purpose of impeaching the testimony that he gave the other day. Mrs. MATTHEWS. Time and again we have appeared before the committee and the gentlemen say, "Now, you ask us for this bill. but we have no assurance the women will not come back next year and ask for something different." We have been consistent. The American Federation of Labor appears at one time and says one thing, and comes back at another time and says something else. Besides, Mr. Hushing in giving his statement delivered an attack on the Women's Party which I feel I should be permitted to answer. The CHAIRMAN. You are in support of this bill that we have had a hearing on, for the husbands of American citizens? Mrs. MATTHEWS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And you are in favor of exempting them from the quota on the same equal basis? Mrs. MATTHEWS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That is the point. Go on, and be brief. Mrs. MATTHEWs. Mr. Hushing said that the Women's Party- The CHAIRMAN. I think you have a made a clear statement and I think we ought to end it right here. Mrs. MATTHEWs. Under those circumstances, I can not go any further. The CHAIRMAN. If you ladies have anything to say that the committee did not have before it at the last hearing, please present it now. STATEMENT OF MRS. BELLE BIELSKI Mrs. BIELSKI. My name is Mrs. Belle Bielski, and my husband was not called yet. Mr. DIES. Did he testify before? Mrs. BIELSKI. My husband was not called yet, and I do wish to impress on those that make the law, to see that the law should be carried out in the proper manner. These women that have been married are exposed to the tempest for such a long time, and there is no solution yet brought about for the present time. I do not see how they go about it. My husband should have been called by now, and he is not. There are so many being thrown back on the public charge question. The CHAIRMAN. We have gone over that. Mrs. BIELSKI. I do wish to ask you all to see that especially. I appealed to Congressman Johnson when we were here before, and he said that, "For all you know, girl, your husband would be here by January" and my husband Mr. FREE. Is he promising more things to the ladies? Mr. JOHNSON. How much are you sending overseas to support your husband? Mrs. BIELSKI. Beg pardon? Mr. JOHNSON. How much are you sending a month to support your husband? Mrs. BIELSKI. I send $20 a month. Mr. JOHNSON. Can you support a husband for $20 a month in the United States? Mrs. BIELSKI. Well, I am going to support him by all the means that I can, and I can not see that this whole thing-that they are supporting us women in the way of having to support them. This is also not support, because if you did say that we women should be protected, you should have seen that our husbands should have been here. Mr. JOHNSON. What are you doing, scolding the committee? Mr. FREE. You have been down here three or four times; do you pay your own way? Mrs. BIELSKI. I should say so-yes. Mr. FREE. What about your job? Mrs. BIELSKI. I am trying to keep it up; and this is also protection for people who say that my husband would have been here, and I would not have had to spend any money to come back and forth, and to keep my job. Mr. FREE. I object to any further hearing, after we went all over this thing before. The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else want to say something? Mr. DIES. We have heard enough; I mean, there is no use for repetition. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Now, Mr. Free, you made a big point at the last hearing, but when Mr. Bernstein talked about these unfortunate cases and the discrimination that was made by these consuls you insisted upon the names and addresses and the amounts of money, and so forth, and Mr. Bernstein promised you to submit a supplemental list of all of these cases, and he apparently has kept his promise, as that came in this morning. I want to offer that for the record. Mr. DIES. What is it? A statement by whom? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Bernstein. When he was here he was quoting from The CHAIRMAN. And the names Mr. JOHNSON. No; he had no names. Now, I would like to ask permission that this list be submitted to the State Department and let them reply to it. Mr. DIES. Where is it germane, when we get to arguing between the State Department and the witnesses? Mr. FREE. NO; you are building up a record here Mr. DIES. I think the State Department made it clear they were keeping them out on occupational grounds. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but they tried to suggest certain cases with certain amounts of money, and Mr. Bernstein made the point there was $4,000, $6,000, $9,000, and all of these figures; and then Mr. Free insisted upon getting the names and the amounts. Now, he has complied with that request, and I think that should go into the record to show conclusively Mr. DIES. If you go on and let the State Department bring in more, then you will have to let the other side bring in more. The CHAIRMAN. What other side? There is only one proposition here; there is only one side here. And there are about 171 names of these husbands; and the question before this committee is proving that these cases, all of them, and present documentary evidence, and that forms a part of the record. That is all there is to it. Mr. JOHNSON. And the proof is in the discretion of the Secretary, and the added security that one had certain credits in the banks, a year ago. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, a year or two years ago. Mr. JOHNSON. Times change; values depreciate. The CHAIRMAN. It is all money, you see there, except a few of them have some stocks. Mr. FREE. I submit that ought to be submitted to the State Department, if they want to make a reply. I do not imagine they will. The CHAIRMAN. I have no objection to the State Department seeing it, but I would like to get it into the record. Mr. FREE. I have no objection. Mr. JOHNSON. I move that it go in. Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, LAW OFFICES, JOHN L. BERNSTEIN, House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In accordance with the request of the committee, I herewith inclose a partial list of women who are American citizens and who have married aliens, showing their weekly earnings and their savings. The study of these cases, a copy of which I left with the committee, was made from information obtained in April, 1931. Thanking you for your courtesy to Hias and to me, I am Yours sincerely, JNO. L. BERNSTEIN. |