are desirable people to have here; and in the case of those who turn out to be not good citizens, if they have stuck for five years without getting into trouble, I think the chances are we can take care of them in our jails.

Mr. BACON. The point I am making is, do you not think that you, as a representative of these American institutions, are hardly fair when you make the statement that an alien is not given the same treatment under the criminal laws of America as a citizen of the United States?

Mr. OLMSTED. I am afraid you must have misunderstood my statement. If I made it, I should like to correct it.

What I was saying is that when you take an act like harboring an alien, and say that a citizen who does it shall suffer one penalty and an alien who does it shall suffer a different penalty, you are making a distinction, are you not? That is the only distinction that I had in mind. It is that this act picks out various crimes and uses one inclusive term, "any crime punishable by a year or more," or "any series of crimes punishable by 18 months," and it says in addition to penalties assessed against citizens, the alien is also liable to deportation.

Now some of that, as I infer from what I have heard to-day, is in the existing law. To that extent it seems to me that the existing law is unfair.

Mr. BACON. I quite agree with you that you are getting right to the proposition that you have a right to consider, and that we want in this committee to consider that same thing.

Mr. OLMSTED. The only other thing I have to discuss is in answer to a number of questions put to witnesses on the crimes punishable by a year or more, as to whether they should be deported for them. I should say in general answer to the question, crimes which involve considerable public emotion, and specifically crimes committed in connection with labor troubles, should not be deported for; because we know in Pennsylvania, where we have a large alien population in our mines and industrial centers, there are strikes, and during the strikes feeling runs high, and without being able to, tell exactly where the blame may ultimately rest, it so happens that people do violate the law who really are not bad people; but they are in a turmoil, they are in a local maelstrom, and they will get punished frequently very severely, especially by judges who do not sympathize with their point of view, and they will quite frequently be given sentences of more than a year.

Mr. HOLADAY. For what offenses?

Mr. OLMSTED. For more or less violent offenses rioting.

Mr. HOLADAY. Just take that question; an alien who has been guilty of rioting, and who has been convicted in our courts and sentenced to a year in the penitentiary. Do you feel that there is any loss to America, to the future of our country, in deporting that man? Mr. OLMSTED. Yes; I do.

Mr. HOLADAY. You feel that

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes, I do, emphatically; I think that public opinion is such that we frequently pick out some of our most valuable people to punish, because I do not want to get into civil liberties or riots, but I have often thought that the great value of civil liberties or of any form of tolerance is not so much to the person who is trying to

exercise it as to the rest of the community. It is good for us to hear things that we disagree with, occasionally.

Take some of the great radicals of the past. Let us take William Lloyd-Garrison, if you will, who frankly violated the laws of this country for year after year, until the cause for which he fought became legal, and then of course there was no more law to violate; but he is an example that people representing the same stratum of society that you and I do here, if we had been living in 1845 or 1850, would have talked-I say so respectfully, sir-with much the same feeling that you have toward Roger Baldwin. I remember once when I was in the Army receiving a pamphlet in which was Roger Baldwin's statement to the court at the time he was convicted for refusing to obey the draft law, and the judge's sentence was there, and I must say that I was much impressed to admire both of them, really. It seemed an impasse. I have never yet been able to solve the different points of view. On the one hand here was the judge who said, "Here is the law, and a great public necessity, and everybody is needed." On the other hand here was Roger Baldwin standing up and saying, "My conscience tells me that this war is wrong. Now, they are both of them good men; and I say the community needs them both. I am not asking anybody to agree with either of them. We will never have uniformity in this country on those questions, it seems to me, but frequently people will be caught in the toils from labor troubles, who are really desirable people to have. side may think of them as troublemakers.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean aliens?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes; aliens.

Our

The CHAIRMAN. You think that an alien has a perfect right to come here and get into a labor strike, preach communism all he wants to, and advocate the overthrow of government?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And to use the strike as a means toward the end that he seeks to accomplish, although he has not yet become a part of this Government, except that he has moved in on us?

Mr. OLMSTED. Whether he has the right to use the strike, I am not so sure; but I do say this, that I think he has the same right as the citizen has. I do not make any distinction between the alien and the citizen.

Mr. Box. What, no distinction between citizen and alien? You believe that even if the alien has come in in violation of law and from the very inception of his connection with the country he has been lawless; his connection was formed with lawlessness

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes; I think I would even go that far; although I might reduce that.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us carry your idea out further. We have a strike in Passaic. That is a strike made up pretty much of aliens, is it not?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes, sir..

The CHAIRMAN. I think we will ascertain for the record the popuation of Passaic. I think it is perhaps one-half an alien popuation. I believe that the strike leaders there say that they are

In 1920 the city of Passaic, N. J., had a total population of 63,841, of which 36,858 were native white; 26,365 (41 per cent of the total) were foreign-born white; 591 were negroes. Of the foreign-born white, 7,566, or 28 per cent, were naturalized; 13,978 were alien, and 1,735 had filed first papers.

communists-that it is a communist strike. The probabilities are that they are preaching antireligion, anti-government, the third international, and other things of that kind; and those speeches are being reported in their newspapers. Now, if that leads to rioting and murder, you think the leaders, if aliens, should not be deported? Mr. OLMSTED. I think that man should not be deported, for this reason, that what that man does, so far as he has violated our laws, is no greater if it comes from an alien than if it comes from a citizen; and the great thing which I would like to protect is that when feeling runs high, if the administrative officers have the power, without the restraint of the courts, to administer this great penalty, they are likely to do it, and thereby create great trouble and dissatisfaction.

The CHAIRMAN. Here he is doing his part to make the feeling high. He has perhaps sneaked in here without following any of the rules for getting in, and immediately he is taking part not only in the strike, but he is doing his part toward the overthrow of the Government. What are you going to do with this alien? You can not deport the citizen.

Mr. OLMSTED. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And this man will incite to crime and perhaps commit a crime, and on that will be subject to deportation.

Mr. OLMSTED. If the man commits a crime, let him pay for it; let him be punished.

Mr. HOLADAY. Did I understand you to say that an alien has the right to preach the overthrow of government, and anarchy? Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. HOLADAY. Do you believe that a citizen has that right?
Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. HOLADAY. How far do you go? Do you believe that the alien or the citizen, either one of them, can have the right to follow up that preaching with more direct action to overthrow the Government?

Mr. OLMSTED. As to that I do not know. Of course, I had occasion to look into the constitution of Pennsylvania the other day, and apparently that very right is guaranteed by our Constitution. It is the style, I may say perfectly frankly, that was started in this country by George Washington, who led an armed force against the existing Government. Robert E. Lee did the same thing; so that it is not moral turpitude, at least.

The CHAIRMAN. You are dealing with citizens in both those cases, of Washington and Lee.

Mr. OLMSTED. Alexander Hamilton was not a citizen.

Mr. HOLADAY. Do I understand that you are what is commonly termed an anarchist?

Mr. OLMSTED. Not in the least. I am a Democrat.

Mr. FREE. That is pretty near it, is it not?

Mr. HOLADAY. In your case I can not quite understand the distinction.

Mr. OLMSTED. The distinction is this, sir; I try to be a tolerant Democrat.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON

Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. Let me tell you that tolerance is one thing; intolerance another. To be a person tolerant of another person's right to have different views is my idea of tolerance; that is, until that person endeavors to make a public issue of his views. The witness says that an alien in the United States should have the right to preach anarchy and advocate the overthrow of government. Must we be tolerant in the face of such a public statement? In issues of national importance it isn't a matter of tolerance-it is a matter of militancy. It is battle. You seek human solidarity; I seek national solidarity. I have nothing against individual aliens and nothing against any foreign peoples. But I insist on restriction and regulation of immigration for what I conceive to be the future. good of the United States. You are probably as aggressive along your lines as I am along mine. We will meet and cross swords often, and you can speak of tolerance; but there can be no tolerance on such a matter.

To my mind, there is a tolerance that is cowardly. That kind of tolerance never won a victory for anything. I make this statement not as chairman of this committee, but as a witness before the committee and I want it to stand.

Mr. OLMSTED. Whether you or I may be the most tolerant

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I am a great believer in tolerance myself. Mr. OLMSTED. I try to be practiser.

The CHAIRMAN. So do I; I believe in personal tolerance, but we must be impersonal. You can be sure that if we get so tolerant in the United States that we lose all ideas of sovereignty, we soon will not be permitted even to know that we are tolerant; that is my opinion. That is, if we adopt the theories you have laid down here and let those who come from foreign countries openly preach ideas, contrary to this Government; let them advocate the overthrow of this Government, before they have earned the right to take part in its political activities; let them get up communist strikes, and let all that go far enough, all of us will be sorry some day that we were so tolerant. We will wish we had been more vigilant. Tolerance is the soporific that lulls vigilance to sleep.

STATEMENT OF MR. OLMSTED-(Resumed)

Mr. OLMSTED. Let me say, not in qualification of my answer but in explanation of it, that when you take a particular alien, for example, and ask me, "Do you think it is good to have that particular man deported," I think my personal sympathy would be that he ought to be; and I might agree with you, sir, that if a person undertakes to take part in our political life he ought to become a citizen first. I agree to that as a general proposition. But I do say that when feeling runs high, a person who may disagree with me as to the desirability of being an American citizen or may have impediments in the way, or something, is likely to be rushed out of the country without an adequate hearing, and rather to the detriment of the general good; and I also feel that if my neighbor's house gets afire, before long my own may be in danger; and if resident aliens are to be subjected to a thing

which is agreed to be against the rights of a citizen, it will not be long before citizens also will be subjected to similar limitations.

The CHAIRMAN. That is as to the civil rights of the citizen. Now, do you think that the Government was right in raiding the meeting of the Communist Party up in Michigan?

Mr. OLMSTED. No, sir; I think, so far as I understand the facts of that case, the Government was wrong.

The CHAIRMAN. You think they were right in seizing the papers and documents of the Communist Party?

Mr. OLMSTED. So far as I understand that, I think they were wrong. I am not so well acquainted with that feature.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the Government was right if it deported any of those people who engaged in and started that movement?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You think they were right in deporting them? Mr. OLMSTED. No, no; I think they were wrong. But I understand you have paid me the compliment of asking my personal opinion. It is purely personal.

Mr. FREE. Are you a Communist yourself?

Mr. OLMSTED. Am I a Communist?

Mr. FREE. Yes.

Mr. OLMSTED. I have just said that I was a Democrat. I have always said that my political ideas run as closely, as near as any man's I could think of, to those of Woodrow Wilson. I have to stand for a good deal in being an admirer of Woodrow Wilson.

Mr. VINCENT. Do you think those anarchists had a right to go up into my State

Mr. ÖLMSTED. What State is that?

Mr. VINCENT. Michigan. Do you think they had a right to go up there as they did and hold a meeting there among themselves with the avowed purpose to start a movement to overthrow the Government of the United States?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. VINCENT. You think they did?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the spokesman here of the Civil Liberties Union to-day?

Mr. OLMSTED. You understand I have said all my statements are personal.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. OLMSTED. I do not think they have anything to do with the questions before this committee.

Mr. VINCENT. Do the other members of the outfit that you represent here hold similar opinions with respect to that matter, that you do?

If

Mr. OLMSTED. Well, that is a question I could hardly answer. you mean officially, I believe the Civil Liberties Union has taken. part in the defense of those people.

Mr. VINCENT. I suspected that it was some kind of an organization like that from what you said before.

(Miss Kendig arose.)