The CHAIRMAN. The committee has, so far as the present bill is concerned, modified it in the line of eliminating the giving of bonds, etc. We have corrected it to that extent, so the bill is more satisfactory now to you than it was before. I am dealing with the measure before the Senate. Now, so far as this other bill is concerned, this committee can not, in my opinion, go ahead on the King amendment, whatever its merits may be, without a hearing. If the committee desires to consider the King amendment, it seems to be absolutely necessary that we should have another meeting, to-morrow or at some other time, to consider that. Senator HARRISON. What did the House do in respect to that? Mr. FURUSETH. The House bill fixes it in such a way that it really leaves the inspector who visits the ship to determine whether the fellow is going to be permitted to leave the ship or not; and an amendment like the King amendment was introduced in the House. Senator WILLIS. Let me make this inquiry. I am sure you know that I am quite sympathetic with this general view here, but there is this difficulty that I see. This bill is before the Senate and we are all anxious to get it to a vote. What I am afraid of is if we go into this question we will get into a quagmire of hearings and controversies, and I am wondering, therefore, whether you would not consent to this view: If there is anything in this bill that repeals or infringes upon the seamen's act I want it stricken out, but let us go on with this bill. As one member of the committee I want to assure you that what little influence I have will be in favor of prompt consideration of this measure, because I think it is important. Mr. FURUSETH. Of course, I am in the hands of the committee, gentlemen. Senator KING. I would like to have Mr. Furuseth given full opportunity to complete his statement. Senator COPELAND. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, about the health aspects of the proposed change. Mr. FURUSETH. The health provisions provided for in the King amendment are absolute. They have got to be properly examined. Senator COPELAND. Would it prevent this situation? We know that there are in the port of New York every day thousands of foreign seamen who are infected with the worst kind of venereal diseases. I fought it all the time that I was health commissioner. What would this do toward the correction of that evil? Mr. FURUSETH. It would put every man who is so affected into the hospital, to be taken care of and cured if possible, and would eliminate him from the country if he was not cured. Senator COPELAND. He would not be turned loose? Mr. FURUSETH. No. Senator COPELAND. I do not need any other argument myself for the bill, because it is a tremendous evil. Four thousand of those seamen walk into our city and bring in the vilest kind of diseases from the Old World. Senator HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could not let this go until to-morrow, because we would have the New York inspector before us then? Mr. FURUSETH. I would be satisfied with that. Senator HARRISON. If we can get Mr. Wallis down here, his views would have weight with this committee. He has had about four or five years' experience with this matter. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be the feeling of the committee that we should meet to-morrow at half-past 10. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. May I suggest that if Senator King will introduce his amendment in the form of a separate bill, we ought to be able to go on with the consideration of it to-morrow morning; but if we keep on postponing action on these various amendments to this bill, we are going to come to that place where this will be the unfinished business and blocked from consideration. The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid if you go into this situation of the King amendment, we are going to delay action. Senator KING. I have offered the amendment here in good faith and I want the committee's view. If the committee shall vote against me, I shall offer it upon the floor of the Senate. I am not filibustering; I will just make a brief statement. The CHAIRMAN. May I suggest a compromise, and that is that we do have a meeting to-morrow morning at 10 or half-past 10, and that we ask Commissioner Curran to come over and we can see then how far this is going to delay matters. Senator COPELAND. Also invite former Commissioner Wallis. Senator WILLIS. I want this bill to go through, and I am in favor of the provisions suggested by Mr. Furuseth, but I doubt the wisdom of seeking to embody them in this bill. Mr. FURUSETH. May I be permitted to bring Mr. Warren Parker? Parker was the former law officer of the Government in the Department of Labor dealing with immigration. For 20 years he was there and he knows the immigration questions as thoroughly as anybody else does. He drew this amendment. I had a different kind of an amendment, and when I came to him he said that one or two features of my amendment were not "immigration," and I suggested that he take the bill and draw an amendment that was purely immigration. He drew this amendment and gave the reasons for it. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the King amendment? Mr. FURUSETH. Yes. May I be permitted to bring him to-morrow morning? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. FURUSETH. May I call your attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Scarrenberg v. Dallas Steamship Company (245 U. S. p. 122)? The court there decided that the seaman is not a laborer and that an American ship is not American soil and as a result of that the Dollar Co. and other companies have been importing Chinese direct from Hongkong right to New York and is doing it these days for the purpose of filling the vessels that Mr. Dollar bought from the Government. He is filling them up with Chinese imported from Hongkong. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. So that we may understand the course that is charted for us in the Senate to-day, do I understand that the decision of the committee is that alien seamen are to be exempted from the requirement of giving bond? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. And that we will go ahead with the committee amendments, striking out this landing card section as the committee has already decided, with the understanding that the vote will be reconsidered without opposition from the committee if to-morrow morning, on hearing Mr. Furuseth and the other witnesses, that is the decision of the committee? The CHAIRMAN. Why make any statement? We will not reach the seamen's provision to-day. Senator KING. If we do reach it, I prefer to pass it over. Senator KING. I have another amendment I should like to offer. I want the committee to consider it. It is proposed to insert after paragraph (b) under section 25 the following: The term naturalized citizen of the United States shall include not only those persons formerly naturalized pursuant to the naturalization laws of the United States but shall also include all those persons falling within the class or description of persons collectively naturalized through the acquisition of territory. If Here is the crux of the situation: If a presumption of expatriation has arisen against a naturalized citizen by reason of his residence in a foreign country, upon his return to the United States for permanent residence such presumption shall cease to exist, and he shall be deemed and be a citizen of the United States. I will read just a few lines here. [Reading:] Congress in the year 1907 enacted a statute giving the State Department, under certain circumstances and conditions, the right to withdraw diplomatic protection of naturalized persons residing abroad. Among other provisions, this statute provided that a naturalized person who returned to the country of his nativity, and there resided for a period of more than two years without registering with the diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, would have arise against him a presumption of expatriation, which presumption, however, was specifically made a rebuttal one. The State Department, however, was authorized to decline to afford a person, against whom such a presumption had arisen, the diplomatic protection of the United States. There has been no uniformity in the departmental construction given this act, and it is to remove the uncertainty that has resulted that the above provision is suggested. Attorney General Wickersham, in the case of Nazara Gossin (28 Op. Atty. Gen. 504-8), in construing this section of the act, says: 66 "The presumption as to noncitizenship raised by the act is created for the purpose of relieving the State Department of protecting naturalized citizens abroad when conditions are apparently such as to indicate that they have no bona fide intention to return to the United States, to reside. When a citizen returns to the United States, the necessity for such protection no longer exists, and it is fair to assume that with the cessation of the necessity, the presumption created by the act ceases." The Attorney General further states in his opinion that: 66 'Obviously, therefore, 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; amounting as it does to a demonstration." The courts have uniformly and substantially followed Attorney General Wickersham's opinion. (See Miller v. Sinjem (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit) 289 Fed. 388; Nurge v. Miller, 286 Fed. 982.) In other words, if a naturalized citizen has resided abroad in the country of his nativity and has failed to register with the diplomatic or consular officer of the United States as required by the statute, and therefore has given rise to a rebuttal presumption of expatriation, he should be entitled to have such presumption removed upon his return to the United States for permanent residence. No other theory of citizenship is tenable. A number of Americans who were caught abroad did not register. Many of them did not know that there was such a law. In 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.) |