Mr. RAKER. Then you think that the application for a passport or visa should have a photograph and identification on it?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes; and not only that, but you need a man at the gangway to check them in.

The CHAIRMAN. To check them into the ship?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes; when they go in shiploads there it is cer tainly possible for them to change the photographs on passports. They will sell passports among themselves. That is not an idle assertion, because at one time we undertook a check of our own on them and we discovered an attempt made to do that very thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you again. There were many reports of these conditions made to the State Department by our officials? Mr. RINGLAND. I have reason to believe they were, because we were in close contact with the consul general and the high commissioner.

The CHAIRMAN. We had these officials over there?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did we have Intelligence officers?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes; more particularly with the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. We had naval intelligence officers there, particularly.

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they make reports to the consulates?
Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they make reports to the United States Navy Office here in Washington?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. On what authority-and is there is any, tell us where we can get it--were any visés, say, given to people from a country that was not recognized by the United States-particularly Russia? How did those people get started, under the law?

Mr. RINGLAND. I was presumptuous enough to write a brief on that. I know that I am not a lawyer; but we had quite an animated discussion over it.

Mr. RAKER. Have you a copy of that brief?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, I think I have it at home.

Mr. RAKER. Could you get it and insert it in this record here? Mr. RINGLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Could he do that, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McREYNOLDS. What does this brief cover, just in a general way?

Mr. RINGLAND. It took the position that no person was entitled to migrate directly from Russia to the United States, on the ground that Russia was not recognized by this Government, and therefore we had no representatives there. In the way it operated, they came down to the great ports like Constantinople and Riga, or even to Warsaw, and then they prodeeded in transit to the United States. My position was that the provisions even of the present law did not authorize that.

Mr. RAKER. That is the position I have been taking all the time. Mr. RINGLAND. It practically has not changed, Mr. Chairman. If may read the paragraph which I think is in point on that, it is as follows; it is subsection (b) of section 11 of the bill [reading]:

I

(b) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly, shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of this act, prepare a statement showing the number of individuals of the various nationalities resident in the United States, as determined by the United States census of 1890, which statement shall be the population basis for the purposes of this act. In case of changes in political boundaries in foreign countries occurring subsequent to 1890 and resulting (1) in the creation of new countries, the governments of which are recognized by the United States, or (2) in the transfer of territory from one country to another, such transfer being recognized by the United States, such officials, jointly, shall estimate the number of individuals resident in the United States in 1890 who were born within the area included in such new countries or in such territory so transferred, and revise the population basis as to each country involved in such change of political boundary.

The point is that Russia is not recognized, and they come out with papers which are not valid, and it does raise a question in the lay mind. The CHAIRMAN. I see your point, exactly. You have got it, Judge Raker.

Mr. RAKER. It has been my contention, and is now, that none of those people could legally come from Russia, because we have not legally recognized the country, and they ought not to be permitted

to come.

Mr. VINCENT. I do not see how you can ever figure a quota until after you recognize a country.

Mr. RAKER. That is a further point. Those two propositions are involved, and all those who come in, come in violation of the law.

The CHAIRMAN. We will excuse you now, Mr. Ringland. And if we decide to have further hearings, we will let you know. Do you think the congestion of refugees continues at Constantinople? Mr. RINGLAND. I think it will, sir. There are many there waiting These steamship companies operate boarding houses for their

now.

reception.

Mr. RAKER. Let me ask you this question. What do you think as to the advisability of having these people come to the United States that are coming from Constantinople?

Mr. RINGLAND. It is very, very questionable, without a very rigid examination.

Mr. RAKER. The great majority of them, it is your view, ought not to be admitted?

Mr. RINGLAND. Yes; emphatically so.

The CHAIRMAN. We are much obliged to you.

Mr. RINGLAND. Thank you.

(Thereupon, at 2.45 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.)

LETTER FROM MR. ARTHUR C. RINGLAND.

Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON,

WASHINGTON, D. C., February 14, 1924.

Chairman House Committee on Immigration,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. JOHNSON: At the close of my statement before the committee on Tuesday afternoon, Judge Raker asked my opinion on the advisability of admitting immigrants from Soviet Russia. To this question I answered, “Emphatically no.' Because of the necessity to adjourn the hearing, I was unable to amplify this statement, and you were good enough to request a letter from me. I object to the continued immigration from Soviet Russia on two grounds. 1. Because I think it unwise from an administrative standpoint. So long as. the Soviet Government is not recognized by the United States, it follows that no

consular or other Government officials will be stationed in this country, consequently immigrants from Russia must be inspected and their papers viséd at such points as Riga, Warsaw, and Constantinople. This has been the practice during the past year. I do not understand, therefore, how any consular officer stationed at Constantinople, for example, can intelligently administer the provisions of H. R. 6540 when he will have no opportunity to inquire into the good faith and the fitness of the immigrant except from a mere paper declaration filed by the immigrant himself. The condition has been, and will be, if these immigrants are admitted, much the same as if we Americans decided to migrate to Europe and were compelled to go to Habana, Cuba, for our necessary papers. How could the consulate officer at Habana make any inquiries with regards to an immigrant coming, let us say, from Wichita, Kans. Such a case would be exactly parallel to a Russian immigrant coming from Samara on the Volga River some 1,500 miles from Constantinople.

2. Because I think it is a grave question whether immigrants from a nonrecognized government are entitled to entry into the United States. I had occasion to present this point of view informally to the consulate at Constantinople. A copy of my memorandum presented to the consulate is attached for your information, although I realize that under the new bill separating the immigrants into quota and nonquota classes, the situation is changed. Nevertheless, even though it should be decided that there is ample legal authority for the admittance of immigrants from Soviet Russia, if it is possible to do so, this class should be confined to the nonquota class, that is, relatives, leaving the quota open for applicants from the 2,000,000 or more Russian refugees now in Europe. Some of the reasons for this expression of opinion are brought out in the memorandum.

I have but one more point to raise. Reference is made to section 2, paragraph (f), reading as follows:

"No immigration certificate shall be issued to an immigrant if facts are stated in his application, or in the papers submitted therewith, from which it appears that he is inadmissible to the United States under the immigration laws, nor shall such certificate be issued if the application fails to comply with the provisions of this act."

I am told that some lawyers consider that under the language of this pargraph the consular officer can not go behind the record submitted by the immigrant. If this is true, the consular officer would be unable to carry out an investigation to determine whether the facts as stated were true, and in effect then he would be as powerless as he is at present. To remove any doubt, the following change in this section is suggested:

"No immigration certificate shall be issued to an immigrant, if facts are stated in his application, or in papers submitted therewith, or if facts are ascertained by investigation by the consular officer from which it appears that he is inadmissible to the United States under the immigration laws, nor shall such certificate be issued if the application fails to comply with the provisions of this act."

I am very grateful for the opportunity you have given me to appear before your committee, and if at any other time I can be of service, I shall be glad to help in any way possible.

Very respectfully yours,

ARTHUR RINGLAND, 56 Church Street, Montclair, N. J.

MEMORANDUM IN REFERENCE TO VISÉS FOR RUSSIAN REFUGEES IN CONSTANTINOPLE. SEPTEMBER 10, 1923.

1. Paragraph D, section 2, of the immigration laws of 1921 reads as follows: 66 'Provided further, That in the enforcement of this act preference shall be given, so far as possible, to the wives, parents, brothers, sisters, children under eighteen years of age, and fiancees (1) of citizens of the United States, (2) of aliens now in the United States who have applied for citizenship in the manner provided by law, or (3) of persons eligible to United States citizenship who served in the military or naval forces of the United States at any time between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, both dates inclusive, and have been separated from such forces under honorable conditions."

2. It is the practice of organized agencies to encourage the filing of affidavits with our consulates on behalf of relatives desiring to migrate to the United States. A strict application of the rule of preference obviously leaves but few visés for intending immigrants outside the preferential class. For example, the consulate in Constantinople grants visés for about 800 Russians each month. I am informed that the October quota is already covered by 739 preferred applications, leaving but 61 for the general public.

Question. Does the law demand that the 739 applicants who have filed affidavits of relationship receive visés before any other class?

It is contended that no such preference is mandatory. It will be observed that the law above quoted includes the clause "so far as possible." In the absence of statutory interpretation of these words it seems reasonable to believe that Congress intended to place wide discretionary powers in the hands of the department. Furthermore, the act granting preference to certain classes refers only to admittance into the United States and not to preference in the granting of visés. The mere issuance of a visa does not determine admittance; that is for Ellis Island to determine.

Now, if it is admitted that discretion can be exercised by the consulate, I outpoint herewith reasons why this discretion should and can legally be exercised in behalf of Russian refugees in Constantinople as opposed to other classes. (a) The Russian refugees in Constantinople are political refugees of a government recognized by the United States and who have been in residence in Constantinople on an average of three years.

(b) The Russians receiving preference (through filing of affidavits of relationship) are just arrived from Soviet Russia and are subjects of this country—a country not recognized by the United States. It is for this reason that the newly-arrived immigrant from Soviet Russia must exchange his soviet passport in Constantinople for other papers. Not until then can the consulate take steps to issue the American visé. Since this is so it is not understood how the consulate can consider valid affidavits antedating this action by months. When these affidavits were executed they were in favor of subjects of an unrecognized Government and could not be acted upon by any official agency of the United States Government. Now, then, can any preference possibly be given this class in face of cobelligerents with Russian passports of the old Government always in their possession? I am of the opinion that the immigrant from Soviet Russia can only claim preference because of relationship when his affidavits are executed after the date of issue of papers that are recognized by the consulate. It is a fact that the hundreds of applications on file in the consulate and placed in the preferred class are from persons just arrived from Soviet Russia. Indeed I am informed that affidavits are filed in behalf of persons yet to arrive in Constantinople. Until these persons receive valid papers they have no standing, therefore it logically follows that all papers on which preference is claimed must date from that time. If this is admitted it follows that applications on behalf of Russian refugees from old Russia are entitled to first consideration for the validity of their papers antedates that of any newly-arrived soviet subject.

(c) The immigration laws since 1917 extend numerous privileges to cobelligerents of the United States in the Great War. It will not be disputed that the Russian refugees in Constantinople and throughout Europe are cobelligerents and at no time have they been subjects of a country not recognized by the United States. Opposed to these cobelligerents preference is actually claimed for technically enemy subjects.

In conclusion I contend:

1. That the language of paragraph D, section 2 of the immigration law of 1921 gives broad discretionary powers.

2. That it is in contravention of the spirit of the law to go so far as to give preference to immigrants who have changed their allegiance overnight. Indeed it is a grave question if such persons can be legally admitted into the United States. (See paragraph (c), section 2, act of 1921.)

NOTE.-Proposed legislation does not appear to change this question-it still appears pertinent. Paragraph (b) of section 11 of H. R. 6540 (Rept. No. 136) is a positive statement explicitly defining the procedure with respect to new countries "recognized by the United States." To the lay mind the inference is plain that old countries and therefore all countries whether new or old, must be recognized by the United States to participate in the general quota. ARTHUR RINGLAND.

FEBRUARY 14, 1924.

APPENDIX.

RECOMMENDATION ON THE SUBJECT OF IMMIGRATION FILED BY GRAY SILVER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION.

The resolution passed by the American Farm Bureau Federation at its meeting in Chicago December 12, 1923, said: "We favor a limitation of the number of immigrants permitted to enter this country to approximately the present total. We would shift the basis upon which the percentage is determined from 1910 to 1890 or an earlier period. We recommend that all immigrants be selected after physical, mental, and other tests in the land of their nativity by representatives of our Government, and that the Congress take proper steps to put such plan into operation.'

The immigration law under which we are now operating expires June 30 next, and some action will have to be taken by Congress either extending the present act or by passing a new bill. After discussing the immigration resolution with the members of the resolutions committee of the American Farm Bureau Federation, I have come to the conclusion that this organization favors a limitation of the number of immigrants permitted to enter this country to approximately that authorized under the present law on a net basis.

I am attaching hereto a number of resolutions passed by the State farm bureau federations and also by local county farm bureaus.

You will note the thought motivating the farmers in their appeal for a change of basis upon which the quota is determined is a desire to secure more immigrants of the Celtic type from northern Europe and fewer of the Latins from the south. Since more of the Celtic race proportionately came to this country prior to 1890 than have entered since then, the change of basis, as already proposed in some of the bills, we believe, will accomplish the desired results. However, the straight adoption of a quota basis upon the census is an inflexible, unwieldly, and unscientific way of regulating the flow of humanity into the United States. In the first place, it does not take care of the emigrants leaving this country, and when the exodus is greater than the influx the effect of the immigration quota is largely if not entirely nullified. Agriculture should be represented if there is to be delegated to a board the power to permit immigrants to enter and not to be counted in the established quota. Therefore I desire to call your attention to and indorse the idea advanced to your committee by Secretary James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor, but at the same time to call your attention to the fact that the farmer is greatly interested in the question of employment both on the farm and in the city. I therefore recommend to you in considering this matter that you provide for the recognition of agriculture by creating a place for the Secretary of Agriculture on the committee which would determine whether or not there is a dearth of labor of one kind or another and whether nonquota immigrants would be permitted to enter for a specified time. Secretary Davis has recognized the farmers as a very important group of citizens who are interested in immigration, but he failed to provide for agriculture on the board. As the selection of immigrants in their own country doubtless would require arrangements and working agreements between this and foreign countries we urge that the State Department immediately take steps to that end, so that if legislation such as is contemplated is passed it will be able to function immediately. The farmers are exceedingly anxious to see some sort of selection of immigrants in the land of their nativity put into practice. The present law does operate in a humane way to a great extent, but more leeway should be given to the immigration board. However, the burden of proof that the immigrant will make a good citizen should still remain with him.

I believe, with the Secretary of Labor, that there should be a limitation of immigrants from Canada, Mexico, and Central America as well as from Europe. The Secretary estimates that a thousand European immigrants enter this country illegally each day. This is more than the entire quota which are permitted legally to enter. Our borders are unprotected. It would be better to have established quotas for the countries of Canada, Mexico, South and Central America, for inspection of people coming across the border would go a long way toward making it possible to apprehend immigrants who enter this country illegally. Further, I believe it should be a crime to enter this country without a passport, and those who enter in this manner should be deported and should not be permitted in any event to become citizens.