fact, I did not know that there was such a law, that there is an obligation, or rather a provision which requires registration in order to rebut the presumption of expatriation. Thousands of American citizens who were abroad did not register with the American consul and therefore a presumption of expatriation had arisen against them. They have been denied the right of citizenship and this expatriation runs against them in claiming property seized by the Alien Property Custodian. It was seized in cases upon the theory that they were Germans or Austrians and, with that presumption of expatriation, the property was seized and is held. The CHAIRMAN. The law is left in a very indeterminate shape. I think the State Department has never undertaken to enforce the presumption. Senator COPELAND. Would this act cure that defect? The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be a rebuttal of it, because in a certain sense the act provides that if an alien going abroad and residing, say, two years, returns, there shall be no presumption against him when he returns? * * Senator WILLIS. The Attorney General specifically points out that it is not simply the return but his residence here that is essential. As Senator King read, “* the essential thing under the act is the intention to return to and reside in the United States. The highest proof of such intention is the actual return and residence of such person, *" Does not the Senator think he has gone pretty far when he removes that presumption simply by having the persons return here? Ought he not to express any intent to reside here? * * Senator KING. Suppose I have gone abroad. I am a naturalized citizen of the United States. I go abroad on business, and I fail to register. We have got many men living abroad in a business capacity. I fail to register in the two years with our diplomatic representative. The presumption of expatriation arises. When I return to the United States I think that the proper construction to be given to the existing law is that the presumption is immediately vitiated and set aside, but this makes it clear. The CHAIRMAN. You repeal the presumption of it. If a naturalized Italian went to Italy and continued to live there, this country wanted the power to enforce that presumption; in other words, the United States would not have to protect him over there if he lived there, say, for three years without registering. Senator KING. I am not asking for protection so long as he is there, but when he does come back that presumption ought no longer to exist. The CHAIRMAN. You submit this to the committee? Senator KING. Yes. I will ask that it come up to-morrow. The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn until half past 10 to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11.30 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday morning, April 8, 1924, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) SELECTIVE IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1924 UNITED STATES SENATE, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in the Immigration Committee room, Capitol, Senator Le Baron B. Colt (presiding). Present: Senators Colt (chairman), Willis, Reed of Pennsylvania, King, Harris, Harrison, and Copeland. The CHAIRMAN. There is a quorum present. At the outset, I wish to state that an effort was made to get former Commissioner Wallis here this morning. I have a telegram dated New York, April 7, reading as follows: Trying all day to reach Commissioner Wallis. Impossible for him to attend hearing to-morrow. Will attend any day except Thursday. FELLOWS, Secretary. Mr. Furuseth, I suppose you did not finish your testimony, did you? Have you anything to add? Mr. FURUSETH. I called attention yesterday to the case of Scharrenberg v. Dallas Steamship Co., under which the Supreme Court decided that a seaman was not a laborer and did not come within the contract labor law, and that an American ship's deck is not American soil. I called attention to that and the result of that decision, but I did not call attention to the fact that they are now importing Chinese from Hongkong directly to New York to fill the ships that Mr. Dollar bought from the United States Government. They are brought to New York through the canal. That is the only phase I did not call attention to yesterday. Then, there is this thing. There are about 600,000 of foot-loose men coming into the ports of the United States every year, men who have no ties to hold them to their ships. The other 400,000 are either officers or prospective officers. Six hundred thousand that come in that way, therefore, are liable to get out and among them you have all these people that violate the immigration laws. These are the people we seek to deal with. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. My recollection is that there were 1,018,000 alien seamen examined in our ports in the last fiscal year. Mr. FURUSETH. That is right. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. And of that, 24,000 deserted. Mr. FURUSETH. Well, I do not know how many would be deserting because I did not get that exactly. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. How many of those 24,000 reshipped? I suppose it is impossible to say. Mr. FURUSETH. Yes. You see there are a lot of men that come under the name of seamen who never made a trip to sea before. They come only for that one trip. That is what the first section of the amendment is calculated to deal with. The other sections are calculated to stop the shipping companies from making a business of bringing them in at the rate of, say, 350 men and leaving with 325 or 250. One Greek vessel a couple of years ago came in with 400 men and left with 225. They leave behind them from 5 to 50 men every trip they make. Unless something is done to stop that thing somebody aboard the ships is going to continue making a lot of money, $1,000 a man. Therefore, as I suggested yesterday, you are closing the front door but leaving the side door open. Mr. Parker, who is here, drew that amendment and if you will listen to him for a minute he will explain just what the amendment is. Senator WILLIS. One of the sections in the amendment you referred to provides that a ship shall carry away as many seamen as it brings in. Do you not think that would very largely remedy the difficulty of which you complain? Mr. FURUSETH. It would remedy it to some extent with respect to the European situation, but it would not remedy it with respect to the Asiatic situation. Senator WILLIS. Why not? Mr. FURUSETH. Because what they are really doing out there is taking away as many men probably as they bring in. How they arrange it is difficult to say, but what they are doing now is this: They bring in a big lot of men, more than they have any use for. Senator WILLIS. So they bring in 350 and go away with 300? Mr. FURUSETH. Of course, out of the 300 that they take away, some of them are men who were here and take the places of the Chinese who came. The Tongs who control these men take some men out of the ships and put others in; so you do not get rid of the difficulty of the exclusion problem. Senator WILLIS. You do not get in any more Chinese; one comes in and another goes out. Mr. FURUSETH. That would be the situation. This amendment would stop the population from being increased through the crews that are carried out. There is no question about that. In another case a ship came in with 54 extra Chinese that were stowaways. As long as they carry them you can not tell; they all look alike. The officers on board the ship have an opportunity to say they did not know when this vessel came in that 54 Chinese had landed at Seattle, The vessel was supposed to be fined $10,800 for bringing them in, but whether that fine was ever collected I do not know. Here is what the officers said: "We did not known they were there." Of course they could have known it if they wanted to know, but to prove that they did know is difficult. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that the bill now before the Senate-the Reed bill-would leave the alien seamen law as it is today, without change. In other words, I understand that the correction which was made in the Reed bill yesterday, pursuant to your suggestion, leaves the alien seamen law exactly as it stands to-day upon the statute books. Now, we have before us an amendmentthe King amendment-involving the changes which you suggest, and the question now before this committee is whether it will adopt the King amendment as a committee amendment, to be reported to the Senate as a committee amendment. Now, I understand that there is strong objection to the King amendment. The committee has not heard both sides fully on this question of the alien seamen. It is a broad question, involving many details. Now, the practical question before us here is if this committee takes time to go into the merits of the King amendment, will we not jeopardize the of the bill in the Senate? It was the purpose this mornpassage ing to see whether there was such opposition to the King amendment that it would involve the careful consideration of the committee. Now, I think it would be well, perhaps, if we should hear Mr. Parker for a few minutes, and then hear the opposition. Senator WILLIS. Mr. Furuseth asked yesterday for permission to bring Mr. Parker, and I suggest that we give Mr. Parker a chance. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker, about how long do you think you will want? Mr. PARKER. I guess, Senator, unless there are a great many questions to be asked, that I can get through in 15 minutes. STATEMENT OF MR. A. WARNER PARKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D. C. Senator KING. Mr. Parker, there are two questions I desire to ask you about paragraph (e), which reads: All vessels entering ports of the United States manned with crews engaged and taken on at foreign ports shall, when departing from the United States, carry a crew of at least equal number, and any such vessel that fails to comply with this requirement shall be refused clearance. One man said to me that ofttimes, through epidemic or disease or what not, part of the crew that came in and which might in good faith desire to return will be detained, and because of conditions over which they have no control the steamship company is unable to go out with the same number to take their place, as a result of which they have to leave often short-handed. This man said that this would work a very great hardship. Secondly, a man asked me whether or not the provisions of the bill would apply to American boats. Suppose an American, flying the American flag, went to Japan or China with a cargo and there some of his sailors or seamen deserted. He makes every possible effort to secure persons who would be eligible for citizenship as seamen to make the return trip, but is unable to do so and finds that he can not leave unless he gets stray Chinamen, Japanese, or Hindus. Would that ship be debarred entrance into the port of the United States as flying the American flag? Mr. PARKER. I will say for the information of the committee-I think some of the members do not know me--I am a practicing lawyer in Washington and was engaged by Mr. Furuseth to draft this bill. I was for 15 years law officer of the Bureau of Immigration, and naturally a great many of these questions have come into my office since I have been practicing law-since August, 1919. Mr. Furuseth brought his ideas to me, which he had drafted in a memorandum, and asked me if I would put them into shape for introduction as an amendment to this bill. I saw on careful examination |