lation is for, as a matter of fact, as far as I can see at the present time. It is to give him every opportunity to pay up before he comes to our ports for examination.

Mr. PORTER. Another point is: What machinery are you providing to take care of the increase of the work of the consular service? This certificate plan, in my judgment, will double the work.

Mr. RAKER. As has been suggested, there is a provision to allow $200,000 to the Department of Labor, so that they themselves out of that appropriation may send their high-class immigration officials to various ports in the United States. That is provided for.

Mr. PORTER. I will say on this point that I have decided convictions that you ought not to do anything to disturb the present visé law except enlarge the power of the consul. If you disturb the visé law it will be a bad thing. There is nothing before the consul except the affidavit of the alien. He may say he comes from Germany, when, as a matter of fact, he comes from Greece, but if he has to have a passport you at least have some evidence of his nativity. The passport gives the alien some standing, I might say, and I think it would be a great mistake to disturb the present visé law, and as far as the fees are concerned, it does not make any difference whether they come in through a visé or a certificate. There is quite an agitation against the viséing of passports. It also is a very knotty problem.

I have a bill which I intended to introduce on Monday, which vests the power to waive visés in favor of aliens visiting the United States on business or pleasure, in case the country of the alien extends a like privilege to citizens of the United States. In other words it is a reciprocity arrangement to relieve this citizen in Europe, so far as the travelers are concerned. We have no assurance that these foreign countries, however, will repeal their law, and it must be a reciprocal arrangement. Personally I have always felt that no American citizen is justified in leaving the United States without a passport. It is true the Government owes him the duty of protection, but he also owes the duty to the Government, and that is to carry with him the evidence of his American citizenship. It saves the Government immense sums of money, and saves delay of identifying the men when they get into trouble, and to my mind it is folly for men to leave America without a passport for European or Asiatic countries. The sentiment against the visé comes from the big business interests of the country, and if you go in and disturb the present fee you will stir up a mare's nest. Lots of these people who are against this will cut it down to $1 and $2. I would say for you to let it remain.

Mr. FREE. Do you see any objections to our giving to the consuls the further power to refuse one of these immigrants a certificate provided the consul outside of the face of the record finds out or knows something that should disqualify the immigrant?

Mr. PORTER. Unhesitatingly I would vest the power in some one representing the United States Government, whether a consul or a special representative of the Department of Labor, the power to exercise his discretion and use it whenever he felt justified. Power and authority must be given somewhere.

The CHAIRMAN. I was about to say that the assumption of the committee is that with this large power given to the consul in the

proposed paragraph in the bill under consideration, at the points where there is heavy emigration, it will only be a short time until assistants from the Department of Labor, immigration experts, would be attached to the consul office to take care of this work.

Mr. PORTER. Where is that power under your present bill?

The CHAIRMAN. It runs back to the immigration act of 1917, with the clause that permits the President of the United States to send abroad agents and have certain powers. The first thing is to make sure that the consular office has more power.

Mr. PORTER. Is that enacted in that bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Not specially enacted. The proposition to exempt the visé fee is one of the proposals in the Davis letter in the bill which has been under consideration for a couple of years.

Mr. PORTER. If you do away with the visé fee you run the risk of failing to reenact it when you take your bill in on account of sentiment against visés.

Mr. RAKER. They will repeal it.

Mr. PORTER. The danger of losing a good many thousand dollars a year.

The CHAIRMAN. There is danger from the fact that when you get away from the war you do not need it.

Mr. PORTER. There are lots of people in the House. I tried one time to make passports compulsory. It got through the Senate and was defeated in the House. Lots of people say a man has a right to go where he pleases at any time he pleases, that the Army and the Navy must protect him in the four corners of the earth, and all that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, I think a man owes a duty to his country to take out a passport.

Mr. RAKER. As a matter of fact, traveling without a passport in a foreign country would be a serious thing, delay in traveling, and the time saved would warrant paying for it.

Mr. PORTER. Certainly. There is another point which is strong. Our foreign service is nothing more than a police force service that we have in countries of the world to protect the property and persons of American citizens. It is a specific service for a special class of people and should not be paid out of the general taxes. Why should a farmer in Kansas have to pay for my protection in a foreign country? I can not see it.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Porter, it is suggested that fees for passports be increased to secure a larger fund for the State Department and for our foreign service. Now, you also know that the act you read here is surely a war measure. That is true, is it not?

Mr. PORTER. That is true; yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. Here we have an immigration act which embodies and includes all the restrictions that were read in the rules and regulations that the State Department issued as to who can or who can not come into the United States. In section 3 of the immigration act it prohibits the coming of all those classes that have been enumerated in the rules and regulations issued by the department. Now they can not come. In addition thereto, wishing to save the annoyances in Ellis Island, it is the aim of the committee to bring home to all the immigrants and all the aliens that information, and obtain that information from them on the other side, and, therefore, in this bill, we provide that before they can secure a permit to leave

the other side that they should answer all questions embodied in the bill, the criminal records, and whether they belong to any of these excluded classes, and they must make that full and complete statement. If by chance our representative doubts that statement, or so on, under the amendment that we have adopted he does not issue the certificate. The aim is to simplify the matter, and that is all. We are perfectly protected under the bill as drafted now from permitting or allowing the entrance of any undesirable or dangerous alien. If there should be any question in the amendment that has been read, why we can make it stronger and say upon investigation not only no certificate shall be issued to any immigrant if facts are stated in his application or in the papers submitted therewith from which it appears there are errors, he is disqualified for admission to the United States under any law of the United States, not shall such certificate be issued if said application fails to comply with the provisions of the act. Now, if that is done the alien is protected from unnecessary voyage, and we are protected in advance, because our representative out of this provision has the power to refuse to issue the certificate, and this only applies to the immigrant, not to the aliens who are coming here for business or pleasure, but just to the immigrant, and to no other classes, and I think it is stronger than a visé.

Mr. PORTER. I do not.

Mr. SABATH. You know why passports were required. It was a war measure that we required passport from all these immigrants but the war being over we should not insist that each and every one of these men should secure the passports from the country of which he is a subject. Of course I heard your explanation why you think the passports should continue, but I can not agree with you.

Mr. Box. I want to ask the gentleman a question if I might at this time. I understand that in your judgment, Mr. Porter, the operation of this law as we have outlined it at present will greatly increase the work to be done in the offices of the consulates.

Mr. PORTER. And some provision must be made to take care of it. Mr. Box. And as organized at present they will not be able to handle it.

Mr. PORTER. That is true; yes, sir.

Mr. Box. I understand further that we ought to have, and possibly you think we have, the legal right to have immigration inspecting forces in Europe?

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Box. But you think you probably are at issue with the State Department on that point?

Mr. PORTER. I am not sure on that point. I would like to have it out with them.

Mr. Box. I personally think the State Department is right about it, but whether that is correct or not you do not think that we can establish such a force as that against the protest of foreign countries do you?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. Box. Do you think we could do it anyhow?

Mr. PORTER. Yes; and I will tell you why. The pressure at home would be so great that they would not take any action against us because it is really for the relief and protection of their own people.

Take your certificate system; that would justify notice that our representative was persona non grata.

Mr. Box. I am not defending that. I was trying to get the effect of your view on that.

Mr. PORTER. On the other hand, let us take a practical view of this thing. Suppose you provide for a complete or almost complete inspection at the port of embarkation. Suppose two or three countries do object. It is a matter which beyond doubt would go to diplomatic channels. If they object, then immigration from that country ceases. They would really protest at home because the people want to come here.

Mr. Box. Suppose we have treaties with them now, remembering that immigration is commerce, guaranteeing them the benefits of the most favored-nation-clause, and we have such treaties with most countries, as you know, and that as a penalty for the refusal to permit us to set up these agencies over there is, according to the history of it, I think you will find none of them have agreed to do thus far. I think the State Department is about right about that. Senator Lodge and Senator Dillingham and Burnett so state, and I feel that some of them will object, as none of them have thus far agreed to do it. Suppose some refuse to now claim the right to exercise this, object to our exercising this act of sovereignty in their country, and as a measure of coercion extort from them rights which they have not granted, will not grant, we deprive them of equality of treatment by this legislation. Do you get my point?

Mr. PORTER. Yes, but you do not do that.

Mr. Box. Why not?

Mr. PORTER. You are treating them all alike.

Mr. Box. Here are two countries with both of whom we have treaties, and under the view of the State Department, and under the view that I hold, I grant you that you do not agree to the soundness of it the State Department communicated with this committee, and I have given attention to the literature on the subject. They have a right to object. Now, we say if you maintain your right to object then we will deprive you people of the right to come to the United States because you stood on your rights. They have two rights.

Mr. PORTER. Your argument is based on the assumption that it is a right they have.

Mr. Box. I understand it is, and I understand that to be the attitude of the Department of State, and I also think it is right.

Mr. PORTER. I grant everything you say, if I agree they have the right to do this. You are entirely right on that.

Mr. Box. It is based on the right.

Mr. PORTER. It is based on the right of the Nation to do that. Mr. Box. Supposing that is a controverted question now, which it must be. I think you will not consult with the State Department without concluding there is a controversy between its view and your view on that subject. Suppose that is a controverted question, now, do you have any hope that legislation which must now be enacted and put in force in the next few months should ignore that controversy? Do you believe it would be sound to ignore it and assume it would be decided, as it has not heretofore been decided, and this committee should report legislation based on the assumption

that the State Department is probably in error and that that error will be demonstrated and eliminated, and that this legislation can go forward on the assumption that the State Department is wrong now, taking the legislative situation? Do you think that would be sound? Mr. PORTER. That is true if you are bound by the opinion of the State Department. I am not familiar with the decisions on that.. Mr. Box. I do not want to be presumptuous on it. I have prepared a little brief for the benefit of the committee.

Mr. PORTER. I would be very glad to see that.

Mr. Box. You probably are at issue with it, but I want to call attention to one particular thing, and that is to the existence of the controversy. That can not be denied that there is a controversy about it. You will find that Senators Lodge, Dillingham, and all the rest said 15 years ago that few European countries would consent to it, and that is the literature down to this time. Secretary Hughes wrote to the committee about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want this in the record?

Mr. Box. Yes, sir; I would like to have it. I wanted to get your view as to whether or not this committee can do the two things necessary for this legislation, first, report legislation authorizing the stationing of immigration officers in Europe now in order to carry out the provisions of this law. I think we agreed that would be necessary in order to take out the proofs.

Mr. PORTER. That is the only proof system.

Mr. Box. If we establish those agents we will have to do it before this law goes into effect, will we not?

Mr. PORTER. Or contemporaneously with it.

Mr. Box. Legislation setting up these agencies not now provided for; isn't that right, between now and the 1st of July?

Mr. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. Box. Now the question is whether or not we can assume that those agencies will be welcomed and received in view of the present diplomatic situation on that subject.

Mr. PORTER. May I make this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this a little further on Monday, but I would like to make the suggestion to you to get to the practical side of this thing. I think it will be quite helpful to call Mr. Carr, head of the Consular Service, who will be able to tell you the extent to which this proposed bill will increase the duties of the service.

The CHAIRMAN. One more proposition, if we set up a proposal by which a consul may refuse to issue quota certificates, and still leave the law by which the consul must under some system give a visé, what will be the position of the consul? He gives the visé and turns around and refuses the certificate and gets paid for both acts. Mr. PORTER. That would hardly be possible.

Mr. HUDDLE. May I make a suggestion: That is, as to the possible requirements of other countries in that regard? These immigrants, when they start for the United States, do not always come direct from the country of their origin. They pass through other countries, and these countries absolutely demand that they have passports, and they demand that they have visés, which indicate that they are coming to the United States. The point is that these other countries may not recognize our immigration certificate, which is a very good document; they do not recognize that, however, as an international docu