STATEMENT OF ANDREW FURUSETH-Continued

Mr. FURUSETH. Mr. Chairman, may I at this point very briefly state the reasons for the two amendments which I submitted to the committee earlier in the session?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, you may proceed.

Mr. FURUSETH. The situation that brought us to think of these amendments is briefly as follows: In 1928, the shipping interests of the United States were given the right to carry 50 per cent of aliens for 4 years. That period of time expired last year. After that they were permitted only to carry 33% per cent.

It suddenly developed that there were enough Chinamen, who although born in China were citizens of the United States-claimed to be and seemed to be able to prove that they were-to fill not only the 33% percent figure, but 100 percent, if necessary.

Those

That is the situation as we find it. Á Chinese business man comes here. He has his wife with him. He raises children here. children are sent back to China for education. They are registered with the consul. They marry in China. They are necessarily people of their environment and their associations. They are brought up in China and, to every intent and purpose that can be conceived, they are Chinese. But one of those comes here. He is an American citizen, but cannot speak a word of English. He does not know any more about America and its institutions than the man in the moon, if there is one. But he knows enough to be employed on board ships to the exclusion of native-born Americans.

The CHAIRMAN. What has that to do with this bill?

Mr. FURUSETH. It has got everything to do with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am willing to listen to your argument, but I do not know what you are driving at yet.

Mr. FURUSETH. The proposition that a man who was born here may transmit his citizenship through a woman that is not born here leaves the door open so that you can largely destroy your Chinese exclusion act, that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not understand the point you are making. If a Chinese who is born here goes to China to educate himself, the most he can do is come back himself, if he can do that. He cannot bring the wife. Citizenship does not revert to anybody else in that case, if he goes to China for the purpose of educating himself. That is your whole argument, is it not?

Mr. FURUSETH. No. He goes to China to be educated. He stays there, marries there, and his children become American citizens. The CHAIRMAN. Where-over there?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes.

Mr. FоCHT. Because he was born in America?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; because he was born in America and carries his American citizenship over there to China and marries there. Mr. DIES. That is the difficulty in the present law, is it not? Mr. FURUSETH. That is why I suggest that the word "or" be stricken out and the word "and" be inserted, because if he marries, he can transmit his citizenship.

Mr. DIES. The same thing is true under this bill; that is, if an American-Chinese woman went to China, married, had a child, that child would be an American citizen?

Mr. FURUSETH. Exactly. And there are enough of them to man the Dollar ships on the Pacific at least, without any trouble.

The CHAIRMAN. Neither you nor I will be here by that time.

Mr. FURUSETH. Well, it is happening now, Mr. Chairman. Those things are happening now.

Mr. TAYLOR. What brings about that situation, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is a treaty of commerce between China and the United States by which we permit Chinese merchants to come here for business purposes. They conduct their business, and if they get married you cannot prevent children being born. If that child is born here, it is an American citizen.

Mr. KRAMER. That would apply to any other country, would it not? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it applies not only to China, but to every other country.

Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in opposition to this bill?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. MAGRADY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. MAGRADY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, representing the American Federation of Labor, I should like to say that the American Federation of Labor is opposed to this legislation. The gentleman who handles this legislation for the federation, Mr. Hushing, is unavoidably detained in the Senate at another hearing. I would therefore respectfully request that we be allowed to submit a brief in opposition to this bill. (See p. 46.)

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else desire to appear in opposition to the bill? If so, please come forward.

STATEMENT OF T. E. SKINNER, STATE MANAGER, JUNIOR ORDER UNITED AMERICAN MECHANICS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen:

I represent a patriotic fraternal organization known as the Junior Order of United American Mechanics. We were heartily in favor of the 1924 bill pertaining to immigration, but we are strictly opposed to any measure whatsoever that lets down the bars of immigration. We are opposed to this bill.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else desire to appear in opposition to the bill?

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAY D. LIGHTFOOT, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, DAMES OF THE LOYAL LEGION

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I have appeared before this committee before this. Looking at my authorization, Mr. Chairman, I saw that I was entitled to speak against this bill, because I felt that it was a matter of immigration. I know that my organization is opposed to any letting down of our immigration bars at this time.

I think that I have nothing further to say in the matter, but I know that we feel very sincerely that we do not want to have any laws that will let down those bars.

Did not the State Department, Mr. Chairman, make some statement in reference to this bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT. Could we have that?

Mr. DIES. I have that statement here.

The CHAIRMAN. The State Department can take care of themselves all the time. We are trying to get some information. It is very easy to come up here and say, "I am for this," or "I am against that." You are against equalizing the situation as between men and women. That is what the bill that is before us does. The part of this bill that has to do with immigration is so slight that it does not make any difference.

Mrs. LIGHTFOOT. I did not feel that it was part of it. If this is a matter of equalization, I do not see why it should come before the Immigration Committee. If it is a matter of equalization, that is one thing, but that is not immigration.

Mr. MILLARD. How does this bill differ from the Cable bill?

The CHAIRMAN. It just irons it out. It equalizes the differences between men and women.

Mr. FоCHT. May I ask the gentleman who appeared here a question? Mr. Furuseth, since when does a Chinese, man, woman or child, under any circumstances, become a citizen of the United States? Mr. FURUSETH. By being born in the United States or, under the existing law, by being the son of a Chinese born here.

Mr. FOCHT. Do you know of any such cases, of any Chinamen who are citizens of the United States and who vote?

Mr. FURUSETH. Plenty of them in San Francisco.

Mr. TRAEGER. Yes; over 1,100 of them were registered in Los Angeles.

Mr. FOCHT. What is the situation with regard to the Japanese?

Mr. FURUSETH. The same applies to the Japanese, with still more force, because there are Japanese born in Hawaii. They can go back to Japan and breed more Japanese who may become citizens of the United States.

Mr. FOCHT. What about the gentlemen's agreement with Japan? Mr. FURUSETH. I do not know anything about a gentleman's agreement.

Mr. FOCHT. According to that, they are not citizens. They may come here and attend schools, and attend to business, but they do not become citizens.

Mr. FURUSETH. If they are born here, if they are born in Hawaii, or are the children of Japanese born in Hawaii, they necessarily become citizens of the United States, although they marry a woman in Japan and live there and raise children there; their children become citizens of the United States under this law. That is why I suggested the amendment of striking out "or" and inserting "and"; so that both the man and the woman must be citizens of the United States before they can produce a citizen of the United States.

Mr. KRAMER. Take the case of Los Angeles. We have Japs and Hawaiian boys and girls attending the public schools, sitting in the same school, at the same benches with American children. Very

frequently you will find Japanese girls taking their exercises and receiving their diplomas from the same platform with American boys and girls in Los Angeles. We are obliged to educate those Japs because they are born here and they become American citizens. That is the situation with which we are confronted in California. We have such a large percentage of Japs and Chinese and others from those countries.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else desire to be heard?

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. FRED B. RYONS, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, MILITARY ORDER OF THE WORLD WAR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Colonel RYONS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen:

The Military Order of the World War is an organization of the officers who served with the allied forces in the World War.

Mr. DIES. Second lieutenants?

Colonel RYONS. Second lieutenants and other officers who served with any of the allied forces during the World War.

Mr. MILLARD. With the American Expeditionary Forces or with any of the forces of the World War?

Colonel RYONS. With any of the allied forces in the World War. The member must be an officer who served with one of the allied forces.

Mr. DIRKSEN. It would include British, Canadians, and French? Colonel RYONS. Yes.

Mr. DIES. Is it a patriotic organization?

Colonel RYONS. It is an organization "to cherish the memories and associations of the World War waged for humanity; to inculcate and stimulate love of our country and the flag; ever to maintain law and order, and to defend the honor, integrity, and supremacy of our National Government and the Constitution of the United States; to foster fraternal relations between all branches of the military and naval services; to promote the cultivation of military and naval science and the adoption of a consistent and suitable military and naval policy for the United States; to acquire and preserve records of individual services; to encourage and assist in the holding of commemorations and the establishment of memorials of the World War; and to transmit all of these ideals to posterity."

The chairman remarked that the coalition seldom appeared except in opposition. Unfortunately that may be the condition before this committee, but as an associate member of the coalition, I should like to say that the exact opposite is true before other committees. Before the Naval and Military Affairs Committees and their Appro-. priations Committees, you would find that the coalition are fighting for something and not against something.

The CHAIRMAN. Understand me, Colonel Ryons, that I consider this group of officers as my friends. We are just crossing swords on opinions. They have an absolute right to their opinions and I have a right to my opinion, and so has every member of this committee the right to his opinion. Everybody in this committee stands on his own record. This is not a one-man committee. What I tried to convey to you and to the public is that your organization and those which you speak of have always appeared before this committee in

opposition to any measure tending to cement family ties of American citizens. For instance, there was a quota fixed, and out of one quota of 150,000 only about 12,000 are coming in. A resolution will come up tomorrow to bring these families together within the law. I am informed reliably that you are opposed to that. I stand by the statement that I made, but it was not intended in the way of criticism of anybody.

Colonel RYONS. It was not with the idea of criticizing anybody that I mentioned your comment. I wanted to correct the record so that it would not appear that our organization was opposed to everything. There are a great many things in the way of legislation that we are very much in favor of.

The Military Order of the World War is against immigration at the present time as a policy. We believe, due to the tremendous amount of unemployment in this country at the present time, due to the depression, and the necessity of our patriotic citizens taking care of a great many people, it would be unwise at the present time to pass any legislation or to do anything which would permit additional immigration.

It would be very difficult to improvise any means whereby you could be assured that 100 percent of those coming in under this bill would be self-supporting, or that a number of them would not become public charges.

It is very important at the present time that we not add to the responsibility of our patriotic citizens and our American people in the caring of dependents, because we are already loaded up almost to the breaking point.

We have no objection to legislation of this character in general, but we believe that the time is very inopportune, and that at the present time this legislation should not pass.

We believe that creating a dual status of citizenship, which affects military matters, is something which is very important in the set-up of our Government and that it should be given very, very careful consideration by any committee that considers the matter.

In times of peace, the question of dual citizenship does not arise, but when war comes we might have a situation in this country whereby an Italian who, under the Italian law is still an Italian citizen, and can be called to the Italian colors, is at the same time an American citizen who can be called to the American colors. All of those complications of dual citizenship complicate matters in such a way that we believe that you gentlemen should give it very careful consideration and at the present time, and due to the great amount of unemployment and the tremendous strain that the American people are under in taking care of dependents, and the fact that our very legislative form of government is on trial, you should be unusually careful in the matter of enacting any legislation which would complicate these very serious matters.

Mr. DIES. As I understand it, the basis of this legislation is to harmonize or equalize the rights between men and women. Are you

in favor of absolutely equal rights in all matters between men and women, military and otherwise?

Colonel RYONS. No. I think the whole theory of equality between men and women is wrong.