Sullivan Act of that State, as Representative Ogden Mills has pointed out in a letter to the committee, which I will insert. DEPORTATION OF ALIEN GUNMEN The following correspondence was handed to the chairman sometime ago by Hon. Odgen L. Mills, Representative from New York, for presentation to the committee: From the committee on criminal courts of the Charity Organization Society of the City of New York: [Bronson Winthrop, chairman; Charles W. Appleton, Otto T. Bannard, W. Bruce Cobb, Robert W. de Forest, Victor J. Dowling, Homer Folks, John M. Glenn, Frederick Trevor Hill, Ralph K. Jacobs, George W. Kirchwey, Morgan J. O'Brien, Alfred R. Page, Alton B. Parker, Frank L. Polk, Ezra P. Prentice, George W. Schurman, Nathan A. Smyth, Henry W. Thurston, Lawrence Veiller. Lawrence Veiller, secretary] 105 EAST TWENTY-SECOND STREET Hon. OGDEN L. MILLS, New York City, March 5, 1926. House of Representatives, Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MILLS: It appears that under present provisions of law (see letter herewith from Commissioner Uhl) it is not possible to deport a professional "stick-up man" who is an alien and who is convicted of possessing a pistol without a license in violation of the provisions of the so-called Sullivan law (penal law). This seems to be a situation which ought to be corrected, and I hope that you will take steps to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate committee in Congress. Yours cordially, The enclosure follows: LAWRENCE VEILLER, Secretary. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, IMMIGRATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, LAWRENCE VEILLER, Esq., Secretary the Committee on Criminal Courts, Charity Organization Society, 105 East Twenty-second Street, New York. MY DEAR MR. VEILLER: In the absence of Commissioner Curran, due to illness, I acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 1. The fact that an alien resident has been convicted of violating the New York State statute by possessing a pistol without having obtained a license is not sufficient cause, under the present immigration law, for deportation. In order that you may know just how far our present statute goes in reference to the deportation of convicts, I inclose herewith a copy of the immigration laws and regulations and call particular attention to section 19 of the act of February 5, 1917. See pages 38 and 39. It has been held that possessing or carrying a pistol is not a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. The clipping inclosed by you is erroneous in many important particulars. While the immigration authorities are not bound by the strict rules of evidence in conducting deportation proceedings, they must obtain evidence bringing the alien within one of the specific grounds named in the statute covering deportations, and the mere fact that an alien may appear "undesirable," or we may suspect that he has done certain things, is not sufficient to justify expulsion from the country. As you stated, there seems to be no point to the district attorneys of the respective counties reporting to the Immigration Service the cases of aliens who may be convicted of violating the so-called "Sullivan Act," as, if this be their only offense, we can do nothing about it. For your information I wish to say that a new deportation act is now receiving consideration by the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, and I am sure that Congressman Albert Johnson, chairman of that committee, would be glad to give consideration to any suggestions your organization might submit to him. Very truly yours, (Signed) BYRON H. UHL, SUGGESTIONS OF HON. H. H. CURRAN, FORMER COMMISSIONER AT ELLIS ISLAND OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In my letter of January 14, 1926, I made a recom- mendation for an amendment to section 19 of the act of 1917 so as to provide for the punishment of alien criminals in the event that if they should ever return to this country after having been deported. I find, however, that this is very well taken care of in the proposed bill. I also find that the proposed bill amply provides for the deportation of aliens who might, subsequent to entry, be found to be idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, etc. Consequently, my recommendation of the 14th, concerning aliens who have been committed to institutions for the care of the insane, etc., may be disregarded. I am still of the opinion that my previous suggestion for amendment to section 27 of the act of 1924, which provided for an administrative fine rather than a court action, should be adopted, as well as the amendment which I suggested to section 8 of the act of 1917. I am very glad indeed to see in the proposed bill that means are provided whereby we can, if the bill becomes a law, take into custody and deport a large number of aliens, who, under the old act, were not subject to deportation. As I have reported to the Commissioner General of Immigration, we have in this district, at a conservative estimate, about 25,000 aliens who are here in violation of law, and who should be deported. No doubt there are also a large number of aliens in other districts who have secured illegal entry into this country, but I believe that there are more such aliens in this district than any other, and I have often expressed myself to the effect that the happy hunting grounds for aliens in the United States unlawfully is New York City and its environs. We have received reports concerning hundreds of aliens of the most undesirable types, who are in this district in violation of law, and in whose cases we have been unable to take action because of lack of sufficient funds. I am very much pleased to see that your committee has left in the bill the proviso for the issuance of warrants of arrest by such immigration officials as may be so authorized by the commissioner general. We have been in the past very much handicapped by the unavoidable delays in securing warrants of arrest. It is almost a daily occurrence to have reported to this office by police authorities and others, aliens (frequently of the criminal type) who are here in violation of law, and it often happens that such aliens will disappear before a warrant for their arrest can be secured. Of course it may be said that there will be some danger of an abuse of power if this authority is lodged in the immigration field officers. The answer to this objection, however, is that the delegation of this power is at the discretion of the Commissioner General, who, of course, is not likely to use this authority indiscriminately. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED BILL 1. Strike out all the words beginning with the words "No alien employed," on line 15, page 2, down to and including the words "be impracticable," on line 23. A provision such as this will merely prove an obstacle in the enforcement of the law and will not, so far as I can see, serve any good purpose. I do not, of course, know the reason for incorporating this provision in the bill, but presumably it is for fear that if an alien seaman is deported on the vessel by which he arrived he might become the subject of abuse. I do not think there is any point to this. 2. The bond provisions contained in paragraph (d), page 4, are made too difficult for good administration. It seems to me that the same purpose would be answered if there be a general proviso authorizing the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, to require bonds of any steamship company bringing aliens to this country, when the Commis-sioner General has upon good cause shown reason to believe that it would be difficult to enforce payment of bills by such company. As a matter of fact, we have in some instances, required bonds in a stipulated amount as a guarantee that all bills would be paid, and we have found this procedure to be very satisfactory. In fact, had we failed to do so, it would have resulted in the loss of thousands of dollars to the Government, principally by reason of the fact that some of these companies have become insolvent without assets. Furthermore, I see no reason why such a bond should be approved by the collector of customs. This is a matter over which the collector of customs has nothing to do, and is solely a question that concerns the Immigration Service. Beginning on line 9 of page 5, the proposed bill reads as follows: "If the owner, agent, or consignee of a vessel fails or refuses to pay promptly all such costs, such cost may be paid from the appropriation for the enforcement of this act and recovered by the United States from the owner, agent, or consignee of such vessel." This language is too uncertain and ambiguous in that it does not state how the costs are to be recovered, although presumably by court action. I suggest that the refusal on the part of steamship companies to pay promptly all bills for which it is liable, be made the subject of an administrative fine, as at present. This is the only satisfactory way in which we can enforce the law. Court procedure is long drawn out, tedious, and unsatisfactory. 3. Paragraph (2) of section 19, beginning on line 21 of page 5, provides for the deportation of aliens who enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officials, or who elude examination, etc., with a further proviso, however, beginning on line 25, that "This paragraph shall not apply to any alien who entered the United States before June 3, 1921." While this proviso relieves aliens who arrived in the United States prior to the date indicated from deportation, it fails to authorize the legalization of their entry, which is required before they can be naturalized. I suggest the following amendment: "This paragraph shall not apply to any alien who entered the United States before June 3, 1921, and the entry of such aliens may be legalized upon payment of head tax, provided they are found to be otherwise admissible. burden of proof as to the time of entry shall be upon the alien, as provided in section 23 of the act of 1924." The 4. I believe that it is inadvisable to incorporate into this proposed bill any reference to the deportation of aliens for violation of the prohibition laws. It seems to me that this is adequately taken care of in paragraph (7) on page 6, and it is therefore suggested that paragraph (8), beginning on line 23 on the same page, be eliminated." 5. The following amendment is suggested to paragraph (9), beginning on line 12 of page 7: "An alien who was convicted, or who admits the commission, prior to entry, of any offense, for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment of six months or more, or for which offense he might receive such a sentence upon conviction; or who, upon report from properly constituted authorities of any foreign government, is found to be a fugitive from justice; or any alien who after securing entry into the United States, commits any offense which, if committed prior to entry, would be the cause of his exclusion from the United States." We have many cases reported here of aliens, both male and female, who have left husbands or wives abroad, and who, after entry, have committed bigamy, and yet, unless they be convicted and sentenced to a term of a year or more, are not amenable to deportation. If an alien applicant for entry to the United States should, for instance, admit prior to his attempted entry to this country, he had committed bigamy, this would be admitting the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, and would be sufficient cause for his exclusion. 6. it is suggested that the first line of paragraph (11) on page 8 be amended to read as follows: "An alien who commits or offers to commit an act of prostitution, or is found practicing prostitution * * * I make this suggestion advisably by reason of certain court decisions in this district. 7. Amend paragraph (13), beginning on line 19 of page 8, so as to read as follows: An alien who willfully aids or assists in any way any alien to unlawfully enter or attempt to enter the United States." The reason for this is obvious. 8. Should not the last line of paragraph (14) on page 8 be amended so as to read, "entered the United States before July 1, 1921, as is provided in paragraph (2) on page 5, with the further proposed amendment that I have suggested to that paragraph? 8. Beginning with the words "an alien," on line 9 of page 9, amend as follows: "An alien who has been pardoned after conviction and prior to expiration of sentence, of the offense as specified in paragraph,” etc. 91781-26-8 10. Strike out the word "order," on line 17 of page 10, down to and including the words "of deportation, on line 18, and insert in lieu thereof "warrant of arrest. An alien is heard after notice upon grounds stated in the warrant of arrest, and not upon the grounds stated in the warrant of deportation, which does not issue until after he has had a hearing. 11. Under the terms of paragraph (e) on page 11, no alien who has been taken into custody on a warrant of arrest can be released pending final decision, except under a bond in the penalty of not less than $1,000. This would cause a hardship, and would be unnecessary in a great many cases, and in addition, would cause additional expense to the Government for their detention. We have many cases arising here whereby it is perfectly safe to release the aliens upon their own recognizance pending final decision, and I think some such provision should be made in this act, as for instance: Provided, however, That upon condition satisfactory to the Commissioner General of Immigration aliens taken into custody on warrants of arrest may be released upon their own recognizance pending final decision in their cases.' 12. After the word "suffering" on line 10, paragraph (c), page 14, add the words "to the aliens"; same words to be added after the word "suffering," on line 17 of the same paragraph. 13. Paragraphs (c) on page 3, (d) on page 4, (e) on page 15, and (f) on page 16 seem to be amendments to sections 15 and 18 of the act of 1917, and it seems to me that it would be less confusing if all of this subject matter were covered in one section. It will be noted that in paragraph (f) on page 16, a penalty of $1,000 is provided for violation of any of the provisions of subdivision (e), or of section 15. Section 3, on page 17, amends section 15 of the immigration act of 1917 by repealing the last two sentences thereon. The last two sentences of section 15 of the act of 1917 provide for an administrative fine in the manner specified in section 18. On the other hand, as previously indicated, paragraph (d), on pages 4 and 5, which apparently amends present section 15, merely provides that "failure to pay promptly all costs, that such costs may be paid from the appropriation for the enforecment of this act and recovered by the United States from the owner, agent, or consignee of such vessel.' I have called attention to this hereinbefore, and I think you will agree with me that the amendment which I suggested should be made. 14. Beginning with the word "until," on line 4 of section 20, page 18, amend to read as follows: "Until the immigration officers (striking out the words 'in charge') at the port of arrival have inspected," etc. At the last session of Congress I believe I discussed with you and the committee the difficulties encountered by the Immigration Service in securing passports in the case of aliens who, prior to coming to the United States, were domiciled in countries of which they are not citizens, and from which countries they receive, when coming to the United States, so-called "certificates of identity" or documents in the nature of a passport. It seems to me that this is a situation which should no longer be tolerated, and I am inclosing herewith a memorandum covering details of this situation. In my opinion, there should be incorporated in the present proposed deportation act the following or a similar provision of law: "American consuls are prohibited from issuing visas, either immigrant or nonimmigrant, to any alien, unless such alien at the time of making application for such visa presents a valid passport from the country of which he is a citizen, or a document issued by the country in which he has a domicile, which document must be to the effect that in the event of his exclusion or expulsion from the United States he may be returned to the country issuing such document, regardless whether he is a citizen of such country or not." I know that you and your committee are deluged with proposed amendments and suggestions to the proposed deportation act, and while I do not wish to add unnecessarily to your burdens I trust that you will give the matters referred to herein your careful consideration. Very truly yours, H. H. CURRAN, Commissioner. POSITION OF FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST AS STATED BY DR. SIDNEY L. GULICK The CHAIRMAN. During the first hearing some information was called for from Doctor Darby as to the charge of aliens railroaded out of the country. Doctor Darby referred the inquiry to Dr. Sidney L. Gulick, of New York, whose reply is presented as follows: COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE AND GOODWILL, New York, April 8, 1926. Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Rev. W. L. Darby has transmitted to us your request for a statement of any cases of which we may know of aliens who have been "railroaded" out of the country without proper trial. We remark in the first place that in the very nature of the case knowledge of such cases would be confined to a very few persons and would not get out to the public. In the next place, we would say that in the memorandum submitted no charge of that nature was made. That memorandum merely called attention to the provisions of the bill by which the safeguards for aliens lawfully here did not seem to be adequate. Indeed, if the bill should become law as it stands, it would allow a single immigration inspector, without the presence of any responsible third party, to issue the warrant of arrest, to arrest the alien, to gather and formulate the evidence against him, to hear his statement, and to formulate and transmit it to the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor, "solely" upon the evidence so presented, is to pass judgment on the case. If something unusual in that report happens to arrest the attention of the Secretary he may remand the case for further study, either to some other inspector or to the same one. The contention presented was to the effect that the proposed law did not assure the alien of his rights. He is not allowed the assistance of counsel, and he is not permitted to see the evidence presented against him or to question any witnesses whose statement the inspector may include in the report to the Secretary of Labor. So far as the proposed law is concerned, the entire procedure may be thoroughly legal yet absolutely unjust. We contend that the law deals with so important a matter that it should itself insure just so far as possible those inherent rights of the alien to have his case fairly and adequately presented. He should be provided with counsel in every case; the report sent to the Secretary of Labor should be fully known to the alien and to his counsel; he should be allowed to send along with the report of the inspector his own statement in regard to it. In these remarks there is not the slightest intention of making unfriendly reflections on immigration inspectors, on the Commissioner General of Immigration, on the Secretary of Labor, or on any of the staff. They have our highest respect. Some of them we have known personally. And we have real sympathy with them in their performance of very disagreeable but necessary duties. They are rendering the country a service of great importance. Neither are our remarks in any way opposed to deportation of aliens illegitimately here. We merely contend that the law should protect both the alien himself and also the inspector from the dangers to which both would be inevitably exposed by the law as it stands. The "regulations" of the bureau would presumably provide for these safeguards. But they are so important that in our opinion they should be embodied in the law. The frailties of human nature, the ease with which mistakes are made, and the real difficulty of providing justice are the reasons why law has been developed and why the Government of the United States is based on the general principle that this is a land governed by laws, not by men; that is to say, by principles expressed in law and not by the arbitrary whims of individuals, as in lands where autocracy and bureaucracy are the ideal and practice. That the dangers pointed out are not fantastic imaginations and wild suppositions of bare possibilities, we may cite the statement of Judge Morton in the case of Chin Loy You (223 Fed. 833): "It is apparent that many of what we are accustomed to regard as the essential safeguards of individual liberty were ignored. The prisoner was not allowed to |