MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. FREE

This bill was ordered reported out of committee over objection on February 28 after the hour of 11 o'clock a. m., at which hour the House of Representatives went into session, and is therefore not entitled to be placed upon any calendar of the House, as this committee did not have any authority to sit during the session of the House.

The reason given for the passage of this bill is to prevent alien seamen from remaining in the United States. Under the seaman's act and regulations thereunder an alien seaman may enter the United States, leave his ship, and remain unmolested for a period of 60 days. This opens the door for many aliens during the 60-day period to bury themselves in the country and remain therein without detection, and it is only after the period of 60 days that these aliens who may be improperly in the country can be deported.

This bill (S. 202) would permit such entry of aliens ineligible for citizenship provided they arrive in the United States on a vessel of their own nationality, but would prohibit their entry provided they arrived on a vessel other than one operated under the nation of their nationality. So you would have the ridiculous situation of Japanese ships coming into port with full Japanese crews, with the privilege of going ashore in the United States and remaining ashore for a period of 60 days without molestation; whereas, if one oriental who happened to be a cook or a waiter on a British ship, even though he were a subject of Great Britain, could not enter the United States, and the vessel on which he arrived could not get clearance until he were removed.

Indeed it has been indicated that vessels owned by other nationals might be registered under the laws of China to obtain the benefits of being able to operate to the United States with cheaper crews in competition with vessels under other flags, and if operated under the Chinese flag, crews of these vessels, under this bill, would be permitted to come ashore and remain ashore for a period of 60 days unmolested with plenty of time to mingle and become a part of the population of the United States before becoming subject to deportation. So the excuse that this is to close the door to aliens unlawfully entering the United States and remaining therein is fallacious.

The extreme provisions of this bill can be illustrated as follows: A foreign ship which desires to come into the United States merely to fuel but not to enter or clear, as is frequently done in the port of Norfolk, would be subject to the provisions of this bill; and if that ship had an oriental cook or waiter aboard, this bill authorizes the immigration authorities to go aboard that ship, remove the alien therefrom and deport him at the expense of the ship on which he was brought into port, even though there was never any intention of the

alien coming ashore, and although the master of the ship intended to take the alien out of the waters of the United States after fueling.

Section 2 of the bill as it is written would make no change in the existing law under the accepted canons of construction because it requires only the inspections that are required at the present time if "bona fide seaman is construed in the same sense as presently defined by rule 7 A (2) of the Immigration Rules and Regulations of 1930, as follows:

PAR. 2. As used in subdivision 5 of section 3 of the immigration act of 1924, the term "bona fide alien seaman" means any alien who in good faith is signed on the articles of a vessel arriving at a port of the United States from any place outside thereof, employed in any capacity on board such vessel and seeking to enter the United States temporarily in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman, with the intention of departing with the vessel or reshipping on board any other vessel for any foreign port or place.

Although there was considerable discussion in the committee about the inspection to determine bona fide, comprehending also an examination of nautical competency, there is nothing in the language of the section to indicate this and the immigration laws are concerned not with such competency but whether the alien will remain in the United States or reship foreign.

Section 3 of the bill would substitute for the procedure prescribed by section 20 of the immigration act of 1924, which permits mala fide seamen simply to be ordered to be detained on board the ship on which they arrive and deported, the requirement that the alien shall be removed from the vessel to an immigration station, with the right of appeal to the Secretary of Labor from findings in connection with his bona fides or right to admission as an immigrant, all mala fide seamen being declared to be immigrants and subject to all the laws applicable thereto, including that of section 13A of the 1924 act, that no immigrant shall be admitted except in possession of an immigration visa. No seaman ever obtained an immigration visa and treating him as an immigrant is a ridiculous result of S. 202 having originally been drafted before immigration visas were required without being brought appropriately down to date. With respect to moving these aliens to detention stations, officials from the Department of Labor testified that only at a small percentage of the ports where seamen arrive are there detention facilities and where there are none it is the custom of the immigration officials to confine them in jails, so that the effect of this section in this connection would be to confine aliens in jail rather than ordering them detained on board the vessel in most instances. The section also would grant seamen the right of appeal which, it has been explained, is objectionable from two standpoints. In the first place most seamen desire only shore leave for a few days while the vessel remains in port. It takes at least ten days to simply forward the record from a west coast port to the Department of Labor in Washington and obtain a decision, without allowing any time for consideration of the appeal. Most vessels are in port only a few days, tankers frequently for only a day, and manifestly the limited time would not permit appellate procedure.

Furthermore, the determining factor of bona fides is a matter primarily of the alien's intentions. The alien may misrepresent those intentions in order to obtain admission to the United States, and the immigrant inspector might be satisfied of this and order the

man detained on board. At the present time his findings in this connection are not subject to review. As provided in S. 202, however, if the inspector found an alien to be mala fide on primary inspection the alien would then be taken before a board of special inquiry, who would grant him a hearing, the testimony at which would be stenographically transcribed. Should the board of special inquiry also believe the alien to be a mala fide seaman it would affirm the finding of the inspector. If the alien was a real mala fide seaman and desired to enter the United States he would certainly appeal to the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor, in disposing of that appeal, would not have the advantage of being able to observe the alien but would have only a written record containing persistent declarations by the alien of his false intentions to reship foreign. Manifestly the Secretary would not be justified on the record in affirming the finding of mala fides, and should he do so the alien could obtain his release on habeas corpus, because the decision of the Secretary would be considered arbítrary and capricious.

It must be remembered that these mala fide seamen are all well posted on what the law requires and can not be persuaded to admit that anything could cause them to remain in the United States, and nothing short of the equivalent of such a positive assertion would sustain a finding of mala fides. The section then goes on to provide, if found inadmissible, the alien should be deported as a passenger on a vessel other than that on which brought at the expense of the latter. The testimony of those familiar with such situations indicates that while the suggested change would not be as effective as existing law to prevent mala fide seamen entering the United States, the provision just referred to would unquestionably be misused by bona fide seamen who would indicate they might remain in the United States in order to obtain transportation home as a passenger without working. Another objection to such a provision is that there are a number of isolated ports to which there is only one passenger service from the United States and it would be impossible to return the seamen on the vessel of another line.

With particular reference to the language "as a passenger, on a vessel other than that by which brought" which is permitted by the committee to remain in section 3, attention is directed to the fact that the committee admitted the error of such a policy by striking out the identical language where it also appears in a similar instance in section 7 of the same bill.

Section 4 provides that an alien, subject to exclusion under section 7 of the bill, which deals with the racially excluded classes, should immediately be ordered removed to an immigration station and then deported in accordance with the provisions of section 7. As amended by the committee, section 7 would not seem to require this and section 4 should be conformed, because by the elimination of the last "as a passenger, on a vessel other than that on which brought" from section 7, the inference is that the committee intended such persons to be deported upon the vessel on which they arrived.

Concerning section 6 of S. 202, this would require vessels entering United States to carry as many seamen on the outward as on the inward voyage upon the theory that this would offset the number of desertions of alien seamen from vessels. The section does not require that those on the outward voyage to replace those deserting be aliens.

Representatives of shipping companies appearing before the committee were unanimously opposed to this section because it would permit seamen to embarrass the vessel by deserting at the last moment and requiring it to delay its sailing until others could be secured. It is also believed that it is fallacious to suppose this section would accomplish its purpose, because if mala fide seamen are brought in they can not be persuaded to reship foreign and those who would be engaged in their stead would be bona fide seamen who would have shipped out anyway and who can return to the United States, so that there would be no change in the number of aliens illegally in the United States. With respect to both sections 6 and 7 of the proposed bill, several Secretaries of State have been of the opinion that under the doctrines of international comity, one nation should not attempt to prescribe the nationality of seamen to be employed on vessels of foreign nations entering their ports. The representatives of the shipowners who appeared before the committee were also apprehensive that this disregard by the United States of the problems of international comity would cause foreign nations to adopt retaliatory measures against United States vessels of a more onerous nature but sufficiently similar to the exercise of the right asserted by sections 6 and 7 of the bill to be free from objections by the United States.

This legislation was rushed through in the closing days of this session of the Congress and without opportunity being given interests vitally concerned to be heard.

The bill will not close the door to seamen who remain in the United States unlawfully. In fact, those ineligible to citizenship will be permitted to come in on vessels of their own country just as they do at the present time.

O

A. M. FREE.

CLAIM OF THE INDIANA STATE MILITIA

MARCH 2, 1931.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. GRAHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. J. Res. 119]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred S. J. Res. 119, after consideration, reports the same favorably and recommends that the same do

pass.

The State of Indiana makes claim for reimbursement in the amount of $20,584.75 for expenses incurred by it in the mobilization of the Indiana State Militia for Federal military service on the Mexican border, under the call of the President of the United States of June 18, 1916.

The claim was disallowed by the Auditor for the War Department on August 19, 1918, for the reason that there was no law authorizing the reimbursement of any State for any expense incurred in mobilization of any militia under the aforesaid call of the President.

The resolution authorizes and directs the Comptroller General of the United States to consider, adjust, and settle the claim of the State of Indiana, notwithstanding the previous disallowance of the claim by the Auditor of the War Department.

The resolution has the favorable indorsement of the War Department and the Comptroller General of the United States, as disclosed by the following correspondence:

Hon. R. B. HOWELL,

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 13, 1930.

Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR HOWELL: Careful consideration has been given to S. J. Res. 119, authorizing the Comptroller General to settle the claim of the Indiana State Militia for service on the Mexican border, which you forwarded to the War Department under date of January 15, 1930, with request for pertinent papers on the subject and for an opinion as to the merits of the resolution.

The claim of the State of Indiana in the sum of $20,584.75, for supplies furnished and expenditures incurred in connection with the mobilization of the Indiana

HR-71-3-VOL 2-77