The only other amendments to these bills that I would like to urge is in respect to 9366, which is the restatement of the present law in regard to bringing in or harboring or concealing an alien. It seems to us that it should be perfectly definite or understood if we could insert there the words: "If any person, including the master, agent, owner, or consignee of any vessel "this is the insertion"knowingly shall bring in an alien into the United States", etc.

The one we want to get at is the person who smuggles into this country an alien. As the bill stands now it is broad enough to cover the case of alien parents who, perhaps, have a child who has come in illegally and, if they harbor the child, they are subject to this offense and penalty. I do not believe it was the intent of the law to reach people of that sort, but to get to the real offenders who are guilty of smuggling and sometimes illegal entry, so that we would like to suggest that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee would be very glad if you will make a list of all of these amendments, referring to the particular bill so that when we come into conference we can discuss them amongst ourselves. (See p. 207.)

Mr. TRAEGER. Would not the amendment you just suggested place the burden of proof on the Government and remove it from the defendant?

Mr. LEWIS. I presume that the Government would have to show that the man did have knowledge of what he was doing and that it would have to be proved.

Mr. TRAEGER. That is the thing we have. For instance, we have in California an alien land law and every amendment that has been made has given place to throwing the burden of proof on the prosecution. In other words, an alien is relieved of that burden. It is upon the State to prove that he is illegally here or that he is illegally holding that land. It just occurs to me that the amendment you have suggested will place the burden of proof upon the Government.

Mr. LEWIS. I hold no special brief for those words. We would like to make it no easier for a man guilty of smuggling. We would like in some ways not to cover the small cases. I mentioned the

alien parents.

Mr. TRAEGER. Will you reconsider your amendment with that thought in view?

Mr. LEWIS. I will be glad to do it.

Mr. DIRKSEN. You are familiar with the philosophy that it is wrong doing and it is a thing that has got to stop.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Did I understand you to say that you are opposed to illegal entry into this country?

Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely.

Mr. DIRKSEN. If this bill becomes law and discretionary power is conferred to say that these cases that are already here, cases that were brought to our attention today, may stay, that same power is conferred with respect to all cases that come forward in the future. Is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Now, then, under your discretionary power, there is virtually an authority to condone, to place a premium on illegal entry.

Mr. LEWIS. In answer to that I will refer again to this. You have the same situation as in every crime committed in this country. I think the same argument applies.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. It is not any different than giving a man probation for a crime, the argument that the parole system tends to condone the original crime.

Mr. FOCHT. You place a penalty and there is the question of profit. You know it is impossible to prove that there is any profit acquired by the ship owner. From the fact that he brings him here the penalty ought to be imposed, the fact that he brings him here illegally. He knows that when he brings him but how are you going to prove that he got money. It might remove a lot of people. You cannot prove that the man brought over paid him money and the penalty should be imposed on him without regard to whether he paid to be brought here, but you cannot prove that.

Mr. LEWIS. I should grant that. The purpose of rewriting this bill, because most of this language is in the present law, is to apply not only to bringing in the alien or harboring him here after he is in, but there ought to be some safeguard for the class of cases I have mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear now from Mr. Quinn.

TESTIMONY OF W. J. QUINN

Mr. QUINN. I am a lawyer in New York City. The hour is late and I think the subject has been pretty well covered and I do not intend to review in detail the specific provisions of the bill. But I would like to say a few words in sumination of some of the points raised and to discuss a little bit the approach of the committee toward this subject and the purpose which it desired to accomplish, and I want to say that as far as I am concerned, and I know that is true of a great many others, if not every member of the committee, I represented no faction of any type, political, racial, social, religious, or otherwise, and the approach to this subject was primarily what is good for this country, and I think that aside from that question, no consideration has been given to the alien, and you will find that damage is done to the United States or to people here at the same time, or else the situation is so grossly unjust that it just cries for some remedy.

While the bills that have been prepared and submitted to Congress do not cover all the recommendations of the committee, I think that they substantially cover the matters which are crying most loudly for correction. I also believe that these bills do not break down or attempt to break down the system of selective or restrictive immigration, but are in many instances restrictive and in a number of instances alleviate some of the hardships some of which are inherent in the situation. I feel that we have today emphasized a little too much those provisions that we attempted to alleviate and we have not sufficiently considered the facts of the situation.

On one hand I find there are provisions in these bills for making it possible to deport criminals that are very dangerous to this country and which at the present time is shown by many instances in the record, it seems, today. Against that we have some provision where the Secretary of Labor or the Commissioner General of Immigration under the Secretary of Labor is given discretion. In every one

of those cases there are conditions. In the first place, there are things which I think would prevent any serious injury resulting from that situation. They have been mentioned many times here today, the question of good moral character, not having committed crime or not having been engaged in any subversive conduct or agitation. They attempt to ameliorate hardships but I think you will find that in almost every case that you study the case histories of, which I will not annoy you with again, that in a great many of these cases, there are people left in this country that are depend ent and that do become public charges, or there are other situations here that are very serious which should be considered as well as the effect upon the deportee himself. I think that there has been a misunderstanding and perhaps is still among many people as to just what the general effects of this bill are. I go around over in New York among my friends who know I am on this committee and I have had a number of them say to me, "Well, I have talked this over with people and I think there is some serious question as to whether those things ought to be done." And I say, "What ought to be done?"

As you explain to these people what we propose to do, and 1 have not talked to any one yet that has not said that they were not thoroughly in accord with it, you get their reaction, and at a dinner in New York the other night attended by a number of you gentlemen, I think several people after the dinner said, "Isn't it perfectly outrageous that things like this could go on under a modern enlightened government of this kind." A great deal has been said about the power of discretion to be given to the Government, the executive arm of the Government under this bill. Under the old law, as I understand it, even the President has no power to act in any of these cases to change the law to prevent a deportation except where the reason for the deportation was the crime when he perhaps might pardon a criminal and in that way wipe out the crime, but that would not touch many of the most deserving cases where there is nothing so serious as crime involved. I think our whole system in every State of the United States, in the United States Government itself, and throughout the world, has been as far as my knowledge goes, provision for some pardoning power either in the executive, which may be a president or king or some council or commission, but there is always somebody that stands above the courts that can in meritorious cases review the facts and ameliorate the hardships of the law and make an exception where the circumstances justify it, and I think that we must rely on the proper discretion of the Executive and that that power will be propertly exercised and, of course, if we cannot do that our whole system of government falls because it involves so many other things besides this question.

The CHAIRMAN. That statement of my colleague, Mr. Dirksen, under his theory that we not invest discretion in any one, means that we will be at a standstill and we will have our internal affairs so disturbed that they are almost undermined.

Mr. QUINN. If the Governor can pardon a man for murder or for other serious crimes, I say it should be within the power of somebody in the question of deportation cases to determine whether there are particular circumstances in that situation that require particular attention.

Mr. TRAEGER. Following the thought of the Chairman, if a man is convicted of highway robbery or burglary or murder or something like that and is placed in the penitentiary, is not his family in exactly the same condition as the people you are pleading for here today? You are not going to let the people out. Suppose you catch Dillinger and he has three or four dependents. You are not going to ask any Governor to let that man out of the penitentiary so that he can kill more people.

Mr. QUINN. No.

Mr. TRAEGER. That is an extreme case but the same principle is involved.

Mr. QUINN. It is, but consider the seriousness of the two situations. Mr. TRAEGER. I say the same principle is involved.

Mr. QUINN. But it is not a comparable thing in my opinion. Mr. FOCHT. There is still a place for appeals on what he says no matter what the crime.

Mr. QUINN. There is a place to appeal. In the case of Mr. Dillinger or someone who has committed a serious crime, the very seriousness of the crime would probably outweigh the family considerations, but in many of the cases that come before us the offense for which they are deported seems to be so small in comparison.

Mr. TRAEGER. But the family is placed in the same situation. That is the point I am making.

Mr. QUINN. Yes, but that is only one of the factors.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. If he committed a crime that was not so serious and is placed on probation, that would be equivalent to a stay of execution in the deportation proceedings by the Commissioner or whomsoever we may invest the power in.

Mr. QUINN. All modern criminology is based on that theory because the idea is in the case of the first offender largely to put him on probation to see if he cannot be made a well man instead of sending to prison with all the hardships and then turn him out as a hardened criminal. The law must take its course but even then there is the power of appeal, and it seems to me that this is a proper case for its application. I do not think we have to be ruthless in order to be just or to be efficient, and I think, in fact, in a democratic government if it is going to survive there must be centers of appeal honestly and justly administered, and if you go among the people and talk with them, if you see these particular cases brought to their attention, even those who before had some sort of instinctive feeling that you should not let down the bars, feel that these cases should be corrected.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayper wishes to get away and we might hear him now.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH MAYPER, CHAIRMAN AND COUNSEL, TRANS-ATLANTIC PASSENGER CONFERENCE, NEW YORK Mr. WEIDEMAN. Which bill?

Mr. MAYPER. The stowaway bill, 9367. I represent the TransAtlantic passenger lines, 21 of the large steamship companies that carry passengers between New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and Europe. In the first place, an examination of the Ellis Island committee report-rather hurriedly-indicates that they are not interested in the stowaway bill; that it is primarily the bill

proposed by the Commissioner himself. In the second place, I might say that it is with great diflidence that I oppose anything that the Commissioner suggests, especially when I am so strongly in direct sympathy with the purposes of the bill, and we want to do everything we possibly can, as operators, to prevent stowaways.

But you know as well as I do that stowing away on board ships is as old as shipping itself and as new as the most modern form of flying. When Pierre Loti and his comrade flew across the Atlantic Ocean, when they were hardly out they found a stowaway. When Admiral Byrd left New Zealand for the South Pole on his great voyage they found three people on board who had stowed away. My assistant happens to be an ex-naval officer. He was on a transport bringing back our Army from France. The transport used to stop off of Brest, not at land. The uniformed men were brought out on tenders; every one was in uniform, every one was checked. He was the purser on board ship and responsible for the personnel, everybody who came on board. Yet, after they started off on the way back, they invariably on every voyage found two or three Frenchmen who had smuggled themselves on board.

In other words, smuggling is not anything that the steamship companies, the responsible companies, at least, want to have anything to do with. They report all smugglers, all stowaways whom they find on board ship. It is costly. It gives them absolutely nothing that they want. They have to take these people back every time. The difficulty really is that we have no deterrent insofar as the stowaway himself is concerned. All we do is to take him back to the other side, which I believe is quite contrary to the statutes of most countries of the world because when a stowaway who gets on on this side is landed in port he is penalized in some form under the local laws in other countries.

We also have now section 8 of the act of 1917, which is proposed to be amended here, which gives ample power to the prosecuting officials to prosecute any master of a vessel who in any way attempts to bring in someone illegally without reporting it to the inspector, or brings him to a place where proper inspection is not had. law is quite all right and should be enforced as vigorously as it possibly can be.

That

We would suggest for your consideration not a penalty on the steamship company, which has absolutely nothing to do with stowing away of an individual, but to perhaps follow the suggestion of your predecessor, Colonel MacCormack, by providing that the failure to report a stowaway, which implies collusion on the part of the master with the stowaway, be made an offense of some kind, but certainly the mere fact of stowing away should not arbitrarily and by itself be deemed to be a penal offense.

There is a provision that the Commissioner may-at least, the Secretary of Labor in his or her discretion may-remit the fine, but, gentlemen, we have had considerable experience in attempting to get remissions of fines, and I think the Department has properly and fairly dealt with these matters, but in every instance it means that we have to get affidavits from the other side and have to hire a lawyer, perhaps. This is a good bill for some lawyers, possibly, but you go through the routine of appeal and in each case we cannot possibly give you any more information than we can give you now