provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of the rules which say:

Telegraphic application may be resorted to only in case of necessity, or when substantial interest of the Government would be subserved thereby and must state (a) that the written application is being forwarded by mail, and (b) the substance of the facts and proof therein contained.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir; I am convinced that such a method is not sufficient. It is not swift enough. While we are waiting for the warrant of arrest from Washington the alien many times escapes. We have tried that, and it is expensive.

Mr. REITZEL. Why not leave the authority with "the inspector in charge"?

Mr. CURRAN. I think that is all right.

Mr. VAILE. What inspector in charge?

Mr. REITZEL. Any inspector in charge of an office or a district. Doctor DAWES. For 15 years I have been urging what Mr. Curran is asking you to do. I have had interference from that source. If it had not been for Mr. Curran's energy and splendid cooperation a great may aliens would have gotten away from me in the State of New York. When we find a case we certify it to Mr. Curran. His men go down and examine into the merits of the case, and the friends and relatives of the alien learn what we are doing and then they get out a writ of habeas corpus and get the alien without our jurisdiction. Only when I call up Mr. Curran and have him get a telegraphic warrant of arrest from the Secretary of Labor at Washington are we able to get these people. I have urged that it be made a little more simple. I would have the warrant of arrest issued by any immigration official."

66

Mr. VAILE. But there ought to be somebody in authority.

Mr. CURRAN. I think it should be the "immigration officer in charge."

Mr. VAILE. It has been suggested that the warrant of arrest be issued by anybody designated by the Secretary of Labor.

Mr. CURRAN. I do not believe in that. I think the statute should delegate the power. If left to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor some Secretary might take it all away.

Mr. RAKER. You favor "upon the warrant of the inspector in charge of the district"?

Mr. CURRAN. Do not say, "of the district," but say "the inspector in charge."

Mr. VAILE. Mr. Beaman suggeses that, in order to prevent the Secretary of Labor from taking the power away from a subordinate, the wording be "upon the warrant of any inspector in charge of a district or by any official designated by the Secretary of Labor." Mr. CURRAN. Very well; that is good.

Mr. HOLIDAY. Ought that to be "inspector in charge" or official in charge?"

Mr. CURRAN. The word "official" would be better than "inspector." I am not an inspector, but I am in charge of that immigration district.

Mr. FREE. What does the Secretary of Labor issue for deportation?

Mr. CURRAN. A warrant.

Mr. FREE. Then there would be two warrants?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes; a warrant of arrest and a warrant of deportation.

Mr. BEAMAN. It might be well to clarify those two terms.
Mr. VAILE. Let us now go to the next provision.

Mr. CURRAN. We have four suggestions all told. We have discussed them pro and con and have agreed upon them. I think the next suggestion is cared for in the proposed bill. I would abolish the present three-year statute of limitations against aliens who enter the United States without inspection. On page 3, line 15, section 19, you say "At any time after entering the United States, whether the entry was before or after the enactment of the deportation act of 1925, the following aliens shall be deported." Is that the place?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

* * *

Mr. CURRAN. An alien who enters the United States without inspection shall be locked up, or at least there shall be the power to lock him up.

Mr. FREE. I had this case come to my attention--a young carpenter desirous of coming to the United States got a visé before the new law went into effect in order to work his way over. He took a job on the vessel as a seaman. When he got here he was apparently inspected and walked off the boat. He was inspected as a seaman, although his papers said he was coming to the United States to reside permanently. If after he went ashore he had remained there he would have been all right. However, his box of tools was held up by the officers of the custom service and he went to the customhouse to get them out. There the immigration officers picked him up on the charge that he had not been properly inspected. The man in good faith thought he had been properly inspected and admitted. He was a man of high type. Thereafter he went out to California to relatives, and while there a warrant of arrest was issued for him. This man did not evade anything. He walked through the gates and took every inspection to which he was subjected, but now he is arrested. He can't understand such. I simply cite that to show that possibly, through oversight, there are people who come in who do not know the necessity of special inspection. This man was inspected and he thought all was well.

Mr. CURRAN. I don't think they will understand it until we lock a few of them up. There are a few who do not understand it. They seem to think that coming to the United States for the remainder of their lives is purely a technicality.

Mr. FREE. What inspection does the seaman get that would not divulge his identity and his purpose to the officers? How does he get by without their discovering he is coming in not as a seaman but as an immigrant?

Mr. CURRAN. How would he get through? He is inspected by a medical officer and an immigrant inspector. He might be a phony sailor coming over for one voyage as a member of the crew without an intention of returning with the ship. He might have the firm intent to leave the ship on the first shore leave.

Mr. FREE. The papers of the man to whom I referred showed he was coming to the United States to become a citizen of the United States and to remain permanently.

Mr. CURRAN. He must have an immigration visé.

Mr. FREE. He had it. It was issued before the new law and the new law repealed the old law.

Mr. CURRAN. There was no such thing as an immigration visé before the new law.

Mr. FREE. He had his papers..

Mr. CURRAN. The American consul was required before the new law to visé a passport, and one of the trickiest pronouncements I have read in the newspapers in many a day is a statement of an advocate of the admission of all aliens who had had their passports visaed by an American counsel before this new law. That visé, said the advocate, involved the good faith of the United States. Mr. RAKER. Right here may I read into the record a clipping I received recently. It says:

Forged immigration permits bootlegged. New York.-Bootlegging of forged permits for immigrants to enter the United States is a flourishing business in Poland, France, and Germany, according to Sabin Balseres, American consul at Warsaw, who arrived here yesterday. Many of the "bootleggers" are Americans, he said, and the forged permits, which are rejected when the immigrant attempts to board a ship, are sold for $30 to $40.

They could have a lot of those visés and run them back as far as they wanted to?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes.

Mr. FREE. How could a fellow like that get through without being picked up?

Mr. RAKER. What probably happened in your case, Mr. Free, is that the man did not show those papers.

Mr. FREE. But he did.

Mr. RAKER. He was registered as a seaman, and all they had to do was to examine him and say that he was healthy. Then he walked off as a seasan, presumably to come back in 60 days.

Mr. FREE. The fact that he went right to the immigration office shows, in my opinion, that he was acting in perfectly good faith. Mr. RAKER. He thought he could then stand with the constitution of the United States behind him. That is the way they do it. Mr. FREE. Aside from what we are talking, how did he get through? There must be an escape somewhere.

Mr. RAKER. We tried to pass the seaman's act to cover that feature. All seamen have to do is to be on the ship's list as seamen, whether true or false, and if he is free from disease he can enter the United States temporarily. Is not that right?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, temporarily.

Mr. FREE. What does the seaman get when he goes ashore?
Mr. CURRAN. He gets a job.

Mr. FREE. By way of immigration certificate, I mean.

Mr. CURRAN. Nothing.

Mr. FREE. Then he is admitted, practically, on his honor?

Mr. CURRAN. Yes. There is just one thing to be said about the ease with which sailors come ashore. A good time to pick them up is just after they have come ashore. They are in New York to-day, several thousands of them. I know the names and addresses of

something like 2,000 of them. They are waiting to be picked up, if I ever get the force to do so. To get them would be a powerful deterrent to others who would go ashore and remain in the country. Mr. VAILE. You started to say something about exempting some who had had their passports viséed.

25944-25-SER B

Mr. CURRAN. It is contended by some that aliens who had had their passports viséed prior to July 1, 1924, and now are caught by the present quota limitations, should be allowed to enter the United States despite the quota limitation. The advocates of that proceed upon the theory that the visé confers a right. The fact is the American consuls had to visé those passports, but the act of viséing did not constitute an invitation to come to the United States. By a very tricky and fallacious reasoning it is set forth that we owe it to these aliens to let them come in in excess of the quota.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Do you not think you are wrong? It would be right if you had no quota law.

Mr. CURRAN. No.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But where you fix a quota and the consuls take these peoples' money and makes them believe they are all right to go to America, and then we come along and pass a law and not provide for them-what about that?

Mr. CURRAN. The consuls never had the right to refuse to visé the passports. They simply said "We have seen these passport and they seem to be all right." They were compelled to do that.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. In 1924 we had a quota law based upon 3 per cent of the 1910 census, so that when the papers were viséed, if the law had been left alone, those people would have been within that quota.

Mr. CURRAN. No; that is idle to make such an assertion. That is not a fact.

Mr. VAILE. You were suggesting the advisability of providing for the locking up of aliens who enter the United States without inspection.

Mr. CURRAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAILE. Is that not covered by section 7?

Mr. CURRAN. On page 13, line 24, you use the words "or eludes examinations."

Mr. VAILE. You see it says "guilty of a misdemeanor." We lock up people guilty of a misdemeanor.

66

Mr. CURRAN. I have not got there yet. On page 13, line 24, you say or excludes examination or inspection by immigration officials." Would it not be well to strike out the word "elude " and substitute therefor the words "enters without "?

Mr. RAKER. Do you not think it would be better to provide for a felony rather than a misdemeanor?

Mr. WATKINS. They use that term in Canada, where I got that language.

Mr. VAILE. If the fellow acted in good faith; it would be rather drastic to say that he who walked through without being examined or submitting to such examination as they give is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Mr. CURRAN. A judge is not going to inflict an injustice of that kind. I think he should be allowed a discretion. Our prosecuting authorities must not be required to prove that the alien eluded examination or inspection by immigration officials.

Doctor DAWES. Take an immigrant coming in from Canada: he says, "I came in via Niagara Falls on such and such a day and on such and such a railroad." You ask him to prove it and he can not do it. And you can not verify his entry; still you can not deport

him. We have such cases frequently. We have people admitting that they came into the United States at a certain time, on a certain date, by a certain route, and we can not prove it and, moreover, you can not deport them. It would be just as reasonable if I broke into your house to-night and you asked me how I got in and I said I got in through the window, and you called a policeman, who asked me how I got in and I told him through the window, and he replied, "How do I know you got in through the window; you can not prove it?" I think that the burden of proof is on the other foot. If a man comes into the United States from Canada without inspection, if proved, he should be deported.

Mr. CURRAN. In the immigration law of 1924 one of the features was that it placed the burden of proof upon the alien instead of upon the United States. It now shifts it back to the United States if you use the word "elude." In this same section is it possible to provide a minimum penalty as well as a maximum?

Mr. RAKER. Yes; both fine and imprisonment.

Mr. CURRAN. The question is whether a judge should be confronted by a minimum and a maximum penalty or should be allowed to suspend sentence.

Mr. RAKER. This says not more than a year or not more than a thousand dollars.

Mr. CURRAN. That is a maximum; now the question is, Should we provide a minimum?

Mr. RAKER. Yes; I do not think the committee would stand for this when they get it.

Mr. CURRAN. The question is, Would the minimum be good lawmaking or not? Perhaps you must leave that to the judge, although you cramp him with a maximum and do not give him the enabling impetuous of a minimum.

Mr. WATKINS. This section was taken from the Canadian law and it handles the situation satisfactorily, and our people up there want the same thing. It is word for word.

Mr. RAKER. You fill your county jails instead of sentencing them to State prisons. That is a matter of policy. What is your fourth proposal?

Mr. CURRAN. I do not want to say that this is final from Ellis Island. We have not been able to go through this bill word for word as we should like to do, but with these amendments and with a sufficient force I think we can make a tremendous inroad into the illegal aliens.

Mr. RAKER. You have not suggested the fourth proposal. You have got over the third one, which is provided for in section 7. Now let us have the fourth.

Mr. CURRAN. The fourth is in the bill and it is this, roughly, that where it becomes impossible or extremely difficult to deport an alien back to a country because of the action of that country, we should be able to prohibit any immigration from that country. To-day we do not recognize the Government of Russia, but Russia has a quota, and any one of those aliens coming in under that quota may be inadmissible, and we are never sure that we can get the alien out of the United States and deported back to Russia. This applies particularly to aliens already in the country who, if deported, should be deported to Russia, but we can not do it. I have the names of