>.l 
 
 342.73083 
 R243a
 
 NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materialsl The Minimum Fee for 
 each Lost Book is $50.00. 
 
 The person charging this material is responsible for 
 its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 
 on or before the Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- 
 nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. 
 To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 JUL 2 6 
 
 MAY 12 
 
 
 2005 
 
 L161— O-1096
 
 UNIVERSITY Of 
 
 ILUNOIS LI3RARV 
 
 ^ URB^NA-CHAr^?A:2M
 
 AMERICAN DEPORTATION 
 AND EXCLUSION LAWS 
 
 A Report Submitted by Charles Recht, Counsel, 
 
 to the N. Y. Bureau of Legal Advice, 
 
 January IS, 1919 
 
 James Madison, arguing before the Virginia 
 Assembly in behalf of a resolution condemning tJie 
 Alien and Sedition Law of 1798 said: 
 
 "Could a power be given in terms less definite, 
 less particular, and less precise? To be dangerous 
 to public safety, to be suspected of secret machina- 
 tions against the government, these can never be 
 
 mistaken for legal rules or certain definitions 
 
 It is rightly afl&rmed, therefore, that the act unites 
 legislative and judicial powers to those of the ex- 
 ecutive that this union of power subverts 
 
 the principle of free government And it 
 
 must be wholly immaterial whether unlimited 
 powers be exercised under the name of unlimited 
 powers, or be exercised under the name of unlimited 
 means of carrying into execution limited powers'* 
 
 Reprinted by 
 
 NATIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES BUREAU 
 
 41 Union Square, New York City 
 
 till
 
 The emergent nature of the matters discussed in this 
 pamphlet is made abundantly evident by the widely 
 heralded deportation of 54 aliens from the Northwest, 
 discussed in daily papers of February 10th and 1 1 th. An 
 effort will be made in New York to test this action in the 
 courts but in vieiv of the state of the law and the decisions 
 as set forth in this memorandum, its success is very 
 doubtful. 
 
 February IL 1919
 
 
 OUR EXCLUSION .\ND DEPORTATION LAWS 
 
 To the Chairman and Members 
 
 of the New York Bureau of Legal Advice. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: — 
 
 Pursuant to a resolution passed by the Executive Committee, 
 I herewith submit to you a report on our Deportation and Ex- 
 clusion Laws. 
 
 You of course realize that laws are the mandates of a rul- 
 ing majority, growing out of economic and social needs, and 
 that the interpretation of the law is often far more drastic than 
 its intent. On the other hand laws are often placed on the 
 statute books and never enforced. We are dealing here however 
 with laws which both in their substance and enforcement are 
 significant because they are loose and indefinite in their 
 provisions and because there is apparent in this time of eco- 
 nomic crisis a tendency to apply them to ends never contem- 
 plated by their framers. The suppression of "Anarchy" has 
 been the objective of these laws, and Anarchy itself is a relative 
 term. In Czarist Russia to advocate political power for popular 
 assembly was known as anarchy ; in Japan to advocate universal 
 suffrage is today loosely known as anarchy; and in the United 
 States to advocate organization of unskilled labor is rapidly 
 coming to mean anarchy, or, to use the popular disparagement, 
 "Bolshevism." 
 
 Again we get different conceptions of what constitutes 
 anarchy if we apply the criteria of individuals. Mr. Rocke- 
 
 1
 
 feller, may, for instance, have a different conception of anarchy 
 from Mr. Wilson. And if the conception among leaders dif- 
 fers, what field for divergence must necessarily exist among 
 the less enlightened? You will observe that by the terms of 
 the law itself what constitutes anarchy is left to the interpreta- 
 tion of Immigration Inspectors. These Inspectors, however well 
 intentioned and unprejudiced, are naturally men of limited edu- 
 cation and training — civil service officials, on salaries ranging 
 from twelve to eighteen hundred dollars per year. But in point 
 of fact they are susceptible to both prejudice and influence. To 
 some, Mr. Debs will appear an anarchist; to others even an 
 official of the American Federation of Labor, should he chance 
 to fall from Government grace, might come within the category. 
 I want besides to caution you that we are dealing with a 
 new type of "anarchy" and that we are departing from our old 
 meaning of that term. As I write there lies before me the 
 New York World of Januar}^ 8, 1919. On the first page is a 
 long account headed: 
 
 MEET "RED" PERIL 
 HERE WITH A PLAN 
 TO DEPORT ALIENS 
 
 All Bolshevists in America Being Listed by 
 
 Department of Labor and Justice, 
 
 Which See Extent of Danger. 
 
 The extensive article further continues: 
 
 "These were the outstanding developments yesterday in connec- 
 tion with the growing Bolshevik menace in the United States: 
 
 Announcement was made in Washington that there is a definite 
 plan to round up and deport all the alien "Reds" in the United States 
 and that the Departments of Labor and Justice are co-operating in pre- 
 paring a list of every person in the country who has been drawn into 
 the Bolshevik movement." .... 
 
 All this is highly pertinent. We are developing through
 
 the instrumentality of the press a desire to rid ourselves of dis- 
 senters and are going to deport them by virtue of the Immi- 
 gration Law. 
 
 The Immigration Law 
 
 An excellent review of the history of laws dealing with 
 deportation of aliens is to be found in an able brief of the 
 relator's attorneys in the case of U. S. ex rel Turner vs. 
 Williams,^ decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1904. 
 The case is remarkable in many ways, but especially because 
 the brief was written by the lawyer-poet, Edgar Lee Masters. 
 It is no mere coincidence in the history of our country that the 
 first deportation laws were written into the Alien and Sedition 
 Acts,^ for whose repeal James Madison argued. After the repeal 
 of the Law of 1798, which provided mainly for the naturaliza- 
 tion of aliens, additional measures were passed in 1799, 1864, 
 1875, 1882, 1885, 1887, 1891, 1893, 1903, and finally 1907, 
 1912, 1917, together with an amendment in 1918. These acts 
 demonstrate the growing restriction of immigration commensu- 
 rate with the economic growth of the country and our protec- 
 tionist policy. 
 
 In our present problem we are mainly concerned with the 
 Act of 1917 and its 1918 amendment insofar as they touch upon 
 the question of deportation. The sections in question. Sections 
 19, 20 and 28 of the Act of 1917, together with the Amend- 
 ment of 1918, will be attached to this report as Appendix I. 
 
 The Act of 1917 may be summarized as follows: 
 Section 19. Provides for deportation of any alien who 
 was within the excluded class when he entered this country, or 
 
 1. U. S. ex rel Turner vs. Williams, 194 U. S. 279. 
 
 2. It is interesting to note that when Jefferson became President, he ordered 
 the repayment with interest of all fines imposed under these Acts.
 
 who shall be found to advocate the following: destruction of 
 property, or anarchy, or overthrow of the United States Govern- 
 ment or of its forms of law, or assassination of public officials; 
 also of any alien who was sentenced to imprisonment for one 
 year or more for a crime involving moral turpitude committed 
 within five years of his arrival, or who is twice sentenced to such 
 term at any time after his entry, unless the judge sentencing 
 him does not ask his deportation; also of any alien who was 
 convicted or who admits commission prior to entry of a crime 
 involving moral turpitude. 
 
 Section 20. Provides that deportation shall be to the 
 country whence the alien came, and if such country refuses his 
 re-entry, tlien to the country where he resided prior to entering 
 the country from which he entered the United States. 
 
 Section 28. Any person who assists an alien who advo- 
 cates anarchy, etc., to enter the U. S. shall be guilty of a felony. 
 
 The amendment of October, 1918, provides that anarchists 
 or aliens who advocate the overthrow of the United States Gov- 
 ernment or of all forms of law; or who disbelieve in all organ- 
 ized government, or who advocate unlawful destruction of prop- 
 erty; or who are members of any organization that entertains a 
 belief in the overthrow by force of the Government of the 
 United States or of all forms of law or of an opposition to all 
 organized government; or who advocates the duty or necessity 
 of killing any officers of the Government of the United States 
 or of any odier organized governm.ent, shall be excluded. Any 
 alien who at any time after entry shall become a member of 
 one of the excluded classes shall be deported irrespective of 
 the time of entry. Attempting to return after deportation is a 
 felony. 
 
 In this discussion Chinese exclusion cases have been 
 omitted. These are in a class by themselves, as this country 
 
 4
 
 has always reserved the right to exclude certain types of Asiatics 
 by treaty, law, and precedent. Those sections of the Immigra- 
 tion Law applicable to Asiatics are therefore not considered. 
 
 Old Interpretations 
 
 Unfortmiately, limitation of space forbids even a brief 
 survey of the increasing strictness of the Immigration Law and 
 the gro^vth of power of the Immigration authorities. This power 
 was not suddenly given but grew from enactment to enactment, 
 from precedent to precedent. The following cases, all arising 
 out of the Act before the amendments of 1917 and 1918, illus- 
 trate the unlimited possibilities of interpretation: 
 
 In Redfern vs. Halpert/ an alien who had been in the 
 country since childhood, was deported on the ground that since 
 her arrival she had become immoral. Commenting upon the 
 
 rigor of the law, the Court said : 
 
 "It seems to me that no greater hardship could be occassioned 
 than by deporting an alien who had come to this country at a tender age 
 and lived here until after majority. Deportation in such case is tanta- 
 mount to exile." (Italics ours). 
 
 In a case similar to the preceding, viz.. United States ex 
 rel Bosny vs. Williams,^ Judge Holt tried to save a woman 
 from deportation by sustaining the writ of habeas corpus that 
 had been issued in her behalf on the ground that the proceedings 
 were irregular. It is a fact, however, that even after the writ 
 had been sustained, the woman was arrested in court by the 
 authorities and subsequently deported, after being granted the 
 formalities of counsel. Judge Holt, referring to the practice in 
 deportation, still in force, states: 
 
 "It is of course obvious that such a method of procedure disre- 
 gards almost every fundamental principle established in England end 
 
 1. Redfern vs. Halpert, 186 Fed. 150. 
 
 2. U. S. ex rel Bosny vs. Williams, 185 Fed. 598.
 
 this country for the protection of persons charged with an offense. 
 The person arrested does not necessarily know who instigated the 
 prosecution. He is held in seclusion and is not permitted to consult 
 counsel until he has been finally examined under oath. The whole 
 proceeding is usually substantially in control of one of the inspectors, 
 who acts in it as informer, arresting officer, inquisitor and judge. The 
 Secretary who issues the order of deportation is an administrative officer 
 who sits hundreds of miles away and never sees or hears the person 
 proceeded against or the witnesses. Aliens if arrested are at least 
 entitled to the rights which such a system accords them; and if they 
 are deprived of any such right, the proceeding is clearly irregular and 
 any order of deportation issued in it invalid." (Italics ours). 
 
 Canford vs. Williams. Another interesting case was that 
 of Canford vs. Williams.^ The relator came to the United 
 States in 1895 and was employed as an art engraver. About 
 1905 he underwent the amputation of a leg. The operation 
 cost about $1500 and left him penniless. In 1910 he went to 
 Italy to see his mother, and, attempting to land in the United 
 States upon his return, was detained. He was at that time sixty 
 years of age; he had been sixteen years in this country; he was 
 willing to give bond ; and his children some of whom were native 
 bom, offered to guarantee his maintenance. Judge Holt, who 
 passed upon this case also, called attention to the alien's mis- 
 fortune and his age, and gave it as his opinion that his exclu- 
 sion was a cruel injustice, but stated that the court was powerless 
 to interfere so long as the proceedings were regular. The court 
 added, however, that it hoped the Immigration Department 
 would reconsider its decision and not compel the alien to pass 
 his last years in a distant land away from his wife and children 
 and exiled from the coimtry where he had led a blameless life. 
 
 I. U. S. ex rel Canford vs. Williams, 186 Fed. 354. 
 
 6
 
 Recent Cases 
 
 When we realize that the most recent amendment to the law 
 was passed as late as three months ago (October 1918), we can 
 see why there are as yet no reported cases in the Courts. But 
 cases have arisen, the number of which can only be got from the 
 files of the Immigration Department. Of the following cited, 
 two were cases where the aliens were held in custody more than 
 a year and their existence accidentally discovered and reported 
 to the attorney. That there must be other such cases it is safe 
 to surmise. 
 
 Joseph Komes. In his affidavit for a writ of habeas 
 corpus, Joseph Komes, one of the aliens, says: 
 
 "On the 25th day of January, 1918, an Immigration Inspector 
 came to the County Jail where he was asked some questions by the said 
 Immigration Inspector. That during the entire examination the said 
 sheriff stood by, standing over the relator in such a threatening manner, 
 so that the relator was in constant fear of further assault and did not 
 feel free to answer questions as he would otherwise have answered 
 them. The said Inspector asked relator if he did not say that the 
 marshals and judges should be shot, to which he replied in the negative. 
 The relator was also asked whether he was a member of the I. W. W. 
 and whether they would give him a lawyer. Relator, at first, fearing 
 the sheriff, said that he did not, but later stated to the Immigration 
 Inspector, that he did want counsel. The Immigration Inspector there- 
 upon stated to the sheriff in the presence of the relator that opportunity 
 must be given relator to obtain counsel. 
 
 Shortly after said examination, the said sheriff came to the cell 
 in which relator was imprisoned and told him to pull out the mattress. 
 While the relator was doing so, the sheriff approached the relator and 
 struck him a wild, stinging blow upon the side of the head, saying at 
 the same time "What the hell do you want a lawyer for ! I will kill you 
 before you get out of here." That this assault and statement by the 
 said sheriff was witnessed by a prisoner whose first name is Pete, and 
 who is under charges for carrying a gun without a license. 
 
 The Immigration Inspector came a second time, in the month of
 
 February, 1918, and asked some further questions. At that time relator 
 was asked no questions with respect to being an anarchist or believing 
 in anarchy." (Italics ours). 
 
 The Department of Immigration made a return to the writ, 
 the return consisting of a transcript of the proceedings which 
 took place in Hurley, Wisconsin. The Immigration Inspector, 
 who also acted as inquisitor and judicial officer, made the find- 
 ings and reported to Washington. It should be noted that he 
 acted as his own stenographer and had ample opportunity to 
 correct any irregularities before he transcribed them. Never- 
 theless, the strongest testimony against Komes were the 
 statements of the Sheriff and Chief of Police of Hurley, 
 Wisconsin, regarding his abuse of the country and flag and his 
 assertion that judges and officials should be blown up, also that 
 his friends would blow up the jail if they knew of his plight. 
 Komes admits intoxication at the time of his arrest and conse- 
 quent confusion as to what occurred. He specifically denies, 
 however, the charge of violent intent toward officials, and his 
 testimony on his beliefs when sober is as follows: 
 
 Q. Do you believe in killing officers? 
 A. No. 
 
 Q. Do you believe the President of the United States should be 
 
 assassinated? 
 A. I like the President all right, 
 Q. Do you believe in destroying property? 
 A. No, 1 never did anything like that in my life. 
 Q. So when you said — if you did say — that you "would fight the 
 
 United States forever; to hell with the United States," you 
 
 were just joking — you didn't mean it? 
 A. No, sir, when my time came to fight I will fight for this 
 
 country and the French. I don't believe in the Kaiser. 
 
 The best proof, however, of the weakness of the case is 
 the fact that when it came up for argument before Judge 
 
 8
 
 Learned Hand, the Immigration Department agreed to cancel 
 the warrant of arrest and deportation. On January 10, 1919, a 
 cold winter day, Komes was released from Ellis Island, clad in 
 scanty summer apparel, without a vest or collar, and thus after 
 being imprisoned more than one year was set adrift in the city 
 of New York, penniless and without a job. 
 
 John Meehan. John Meehan was arrested in Everett, 
 Washington, on May 21, 1917, for a violation of some local 
 anti-billboard act. It was found that he was a member of the 
 I. W. W. and he was ordered deported to England, from which 
 country he came twenty-five years ago. During the entire 
 time of his incarceration, namely from May, 1917, to December, 
 1918, he was given no change of clothing except two sets of 
 underwear, a blue shirt without collar, and a badly worn shirt 
 and pair of trousers. He had no money and had to borrow 
 stamps from his fellow-prisoners to write to his friends. In 
 December he was deported to England — hatless, penniless, and 
 with insufficient clothing. He has neither kith nor kin in Eng- 
 land, and what will happen to him upon his arrival there is 
 easy to surmise, especially if we consider the economic condi- 
 tion of the country during this period of reconstruction. As 
 Appendix II and Ila, to this report, I submit copies of letters 
 sent by Mr. Meehan to Mr. McKee, the Deportation Officer at 
 Ellis Island, and to myself. 
 
 Frank R. Lopez. Another instance of the misapplica- 
 tion of the Act is the case of the Spaniard, Frank R. Lopez, who 
 was arrested in Boston, charged with "anarchy," ordered de- 
 ported and is now at Ellis Island, pending an appeal in his case 
 to the Circuit Court which is to pass on the question of law. There 
 is no claim whatsoever that Lopez is a violent or criminal an- 
 archist. He described himself as a "philosophical anarchist" 
 and it is admitted that he is a member of the American Federa-
 
 tion of Labor; that he owns his own home in East Dedham, 
 Mass.; that he is married, has a boy ten years of age, has been 
 in this country seventeen years; and has always been a law- 
 abiding citizen. The following quotations at page 3 from the 
 record on appeal are instructive: 
 
 "Q. What are their ideas (referring to anarchists) ? 
 
 A. Education of children. Libertarian ideas. 
 
 Q. Do you believe in or advocate the overthrow by violence or 
 force the Government of the United States? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Any other Government, Spanish or Italian or Mexican? 
 
 A. No, sir, our ideals are founded on education. 
 
 Q. What are your ideals? 
 
 A. Free thinking. 
 
 Q. Don't you believe in the power of authority? 
 
 A. What do you mean? 
 
 Q. Organized government. Don't you think that if the President 
 gives an order when Congress empowers him it should be 
 obeyed? 
 
 A. Yes, the orders should be obeyed. 
 
 Q. Do you believe in the propriety of assassination of public 
 officials of the United States or any other government? 
 
 A. No, sir. Not only officials but of nobody. Everybody has a 
 right to live. 
 
 Q. Do you believe in anarchy? 
 
 A. What do you mean by anarchy? 
 
 Q. Well, it would be anarchy to fight against the laws of the 
 United States; tear down buildings, blow them up. 
 
 A. Anything else? I believe in anarchy but it is not in the way you 
 explain it or the way the newspapers say anarchy is. Anarchy 
 the way the newspapers explain it, assassinating women and 
 children, dropping bombs, or anything like that. I don't 
 believe in that. But I do believe in teaching, educating and 
 telling the people how to better their conditions. If you mean 
 that I am proud of being an anarchist. I am against killing 
 and against destruction. We are to construct. 
 
 10
 
 Q. How are you going to proceed to do this? 
 
 A. We are not going to force our ideals on anybody's mind. We 
 
 have conferences; we have lectures. The doors are open and 
 
 everybody is welcome. 
 Q. You try to get people through advertising means? 
 A. Yes, for educational purposes. 
 
 Q. For the educational purposes of teaching them anarchy? 
 A. To teach them anarchy the way we understand it but not the 
 
 way you understand it. The way many writers understand it. 
 Q. What writers? 
 A. Tolstoi, Marx, Ferrer, Zola, Kropotkin, and many others." 
 
 At page 4: 
 
 Q. Here is a Cultura Obrera of February 2, 1918. Just glance 
 over it and tell me if you believe in all that? 
 
 A. I read it long ago. 
 
 Q. Do you believe in the sentiments expressed therein? 
 
 A. I am not satisfied in part. I am not sympathizing with them 
 in that. 
 
 Q. Is that known as an anarchistic paper? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. What kind of a paper is it? 
 
 A. Labor paper. Periodico Obrera means labor paper. Educa- 
 tion, Organization and Emancipation. 
 
 Q. Emancipation from what? 
 
 A. I suppose you know what emancipation means? Freedom. 
 
 Q. Freedom of what? 
 
 A. Freedom of slavery. 
 
 Q. There is no slavery now. What do you mean? There is 
 no slavery going on these days? 
 
 A. If there is no slavery here there may be slavery in another 
 part of the world." 
 
 At page 7 : 
 
 Q. What does he mean by working for the cause in Cuba? 
 A. He was interested in labor movements. What you call today 
 
 Anarchy is real Socialism. Socialism of a few years ago. 
 Q. You hear people say that tliey are philosophical anarchists. 
 
 What do they mean by that? 
 
 11
 
 A. That is real anarchy. Not the anarchy the way you explain 
 it as throwing bombs. Philosophy of anarchism is real social- 
 ism. These papers are sold on the news-stands in South 
 America and the boys sell them on the street morning and 
 evening and nobody says anything about it. They don't tell 
 people to kill anybody or to destroy fields. 
 
 Lopez himself summed up his own case at the hearing 
 before the Immigration Inspector. The last question he was 
 asked was: 
 
 "Q. If you are ordered deported do you Avant to be separated 
 from your wife and boy or would you desire to have them go 
 W'ith you to Spain? 
 
 A. It's up to the Government; I think it is an injustice; I have 
 done nothing wrong; I call it an injustice; if a man is going to 
 be punished for his thoughts and his ideas it is an injustice." 
 (Italics ours). 
 
 This case was argued at length before Judge Knox and 
 brief submitted. Judge Knox rendered an opinion, which is 
 attached to this report as Appendix III. 
 
 Difficulty in Reaching Prisoners 
 
 The general public is under the impression that the writ 
 of habeas corpus is always an efficacious remedy. Unfortun- 
 ately this ancient Anglo-Saxon right has lost almost all of its 
 liberating magic. If officials were really interested in protect- 
 ing prisoners in their rights their course would be a compara- 
 tively easy one. Unfortunately the reverse is the case. The 
 Port of New York (Ellis Island), for instance, under the guise 
 of protecting immigrants against unscrupulous lawyers, debars 
 attorneys and permits no one to enter without a pass. In a cer- 
 tain case the subordinates placed so many obstacles in the way 
 of the attorney in his effort to get the petition for the writ signed 
 
 12
 
 by the prisoner that his representative was obliged to carry it to 
 the prisoner smuggled in his socks! 
 
 But it may be claimed that the attorney can sign the appli- 
 cation for the writ himself and avoid these difficulties. That 
 such procedure is not practicable may be seen from the experi- 
 ence of my colleague, Mr. Walter Nelles, Counsel for the Na- 
 tional Civil Liberties Bureau. 
 
 Acting on telegraphic instructions from Spokane, Wash., 
 Mr. Nelles applied for a writ of habeas corpus to prevent the 
 deportation of six Scandinavians on the ground that they had 
 not had a fair hearing and that there had been no evidence to 
 sustain the charges against them. He signed the application 
 for the writ himself because of the difficulties in the way of 
 communicating with his clients. The prisoners, who had been 
 held incommunicado, did not know that their friends in Spokane 
 had retained a lawyer to protect them. The first time the at- 
 torney saw his clients was when they were produced before 
 Judge Augustus N. Hand, in the Federal Court in New York. 
 They were asked if they knew Mr. Nelles, to which they of 
 course replied in the negative. The lawyer offered to show the 
 men the telegram he had received from Spokane and to ask 
 them if they approved the retainer. To this the Assistant United 
 States Attorney objected. 
 
 "I shall sustain the objection," ruled the Judge, "I am not 
 going to allow attorneys to be employed by ratification after- 
 wards." 
 
 The proceedings were tlien dismissed on the ground that 
 the attorney had no right to represent the men and the aliens 
 were returned to Ellis Island and deported to Sweden. The 
 following facts were brought out in court in relation to the "due 
 process of law" at the hearing in the state of Washington: 
 
 Q. Did you have a hearing before the Commissioner of Immi- 
 gration in Washington? 
 
 13
 
 A. Yes, we had a kind of a hearing there. 
 Q. Did you ask for a lawyer. 
 
 A. I asked to have a chance to get into communication with an 
 attorney, he told us we could, but he never gave us a chance 
 to do it. 
 Q. What do you mean by tliat? 
 
 A. Well, they threw us in the Black Hole until the 22nd of 
 ' April and' took us out and gave us a hearing." 
 
 These questions were addressed to David E. Jolinson, one 
 of the aliens. There was no inquiry into the merits of this case 
 but the U. S. Attorney privately showed the Judge various docu- 
 ments, one being a radical looking pamphlet with red covers. 
 The statements made to the Judge by the attorney, Mr. Nelles 
 states, were inaudible and tlie pamplilets were not made a part 
 of the record. The names of the deported men are: David E. 
 Johnson, Henning Anderson, Lars Anderson, Edwin Berg, 
 Charles Spanberg and Nels Madison. Some of them had been 
 in this country as long as fifteen years. 
 
 Seattle Cases 
 
 The National Civil Liberties Bureau reports the cases of the 
 following aliens, — Henry W. Watts, Achille Ricci, Bartlomeo 
 Massulo, Vincenzo Zacagnini, Emilio Ghelfi, Ottavio Ponnani, 
 Giuseppe DeMatteis, George Painich, Titinio Dentino, Pietro 
 Belli, Carmello Fillippini, Annidale Sciallo, Giuseppe Bertol- 
 lotti, Francisco Goggi, all held for deportation in Seattle, Wash., 
 on the ground that they were dangerous anarchists. The hear- 
 ings of tliese aliens took place in the months of November and 
 December, 1917, in Seattle, before Immigration Inspectors 
 Fischer and Burford. 
 
 The record discloses the following facts. All of these 
 men, Italians except Watts and Painich, were arrested on De- 
 partment warrants as the result of a raid made on the Circulo 
 
 ].4
 
 Studi Sociale. The most damaging evidence against them dis- 
 closed the following facts: that they subscribed to a paper 
 called "Cronacca Suwersia"; that they sympathized with labor 
 leaders under arrest; that they contributed to the Mooney de- 
 fense funds and sent contributions to the strikers in the Messaba 
 Range. 
 
 While the record does not disclose the nature of the pub- 
 lication it is stated by agents of the Department of Justice that 
 the "Cronacca Suwersia" is a dangerous paper advocating an- 
 archy and sabotage. The record mentions, however, the pos- 
 session of several publications, but upon inquiry they turn out 
 to be mainly books on health and hygiene. Only two of the 
 aliens were found to be circulating the paper. The others were 
 merely subscribers. It is also true that books dealing with 
 different scientific subjects were found in their homes. These 
 dealt with topics ranging from the Darwinian theory to Social- 
 ism and Philosophical Anarchy. But most of these men did 
 not understand the books, never read them, and merely bought 
 them to help the "cause" along. All felt this to be the cause 
 of the worker in his desire to better his condition but their ideas 
 of attaining that end were varied, confused and indefinite. For 
 instance Massulo testified on pages 3 and 4 of his record: 
 
 A, The anarchist society is not a society, everybody can be one. 
 
 Get those papers, read them, if you like them get them again, 
 
 if you don't like them, don't get them. 
 Q. Do you believe in anarchy? 
 A. I don't believe. I am a working man and haven't got to the 
 
 bottom of the books. 
 
 Ghef i, on page 3 of his record, says : 
 A. Some one showed me the paper and told me that it was a good 
 
 paper for the working class of men. 
 A. The first time I bought the paper I read a few of the papers 
 
 and I did not like it. 
 
 15
 
 Bertollotti is an evolutionist. He makes a special point of 
 correcting the Inspector when the latter mistook him for a 
 fatalist. A poet has been lost to the world in the miner Ber- 
 tollotti. 
 
 Belli testifies on page 12 of his record, in answer to the 
 question, "Now, did you consider it a crime to read the papers," 
 "I do not know; I am reading whatever I understand and what- 
 ever pleases, I take notice of; whatever I do not understand 
 I pass it on." 
 
 The testimony of George Painich, the Croatian, is interest- 
 ing because it shows how fast we are losing all distinction be- 
 tween criminal and violent anarchy and the advocacy of politi- 
 cal change by lawful means. Painich is a Socialist, not an 
 I. W. W. Asked for his opinions, he stated that he did not be- 
 lieve in sabotage and testified, (page 3), as follows regarding 
 revolutionary means: 
 
 I don't believe in revolution today against the government. The 
 workingnian has to put in a different system and then he has to put 
 the things through the government." 
 
 There is a serious human aspect to these cases. These men 
 had a real stake in this country. Contrary to the more usual 
 type of I. W. W., some of them own their own homes. Nearly 
 all had children bom in this country. Their occupations were 
 those of laborers and miners, and their families were of course 
 entirely dependent upon them for support. There is consider- 
 able evidence that these men desired American citizenship and 
 were home loving and law abiding persons. Nevertheless, 
 though fathers of families and small property holders, several 
 are .'-^scribed as "persons likely to become a public charge." 
 
 The Seattle cases admirably illustrate the injustice possi- 
 ble under the 1917 and 1918 laws. No overt acts were charged 
 in the entire record against any of the aliens. Noteworthy is 
 
 16
 
 the statement of Inspector Fischer recommending the deporta- 
 tion of Henry W. Watts: 
 
 "There is no evidence to support this charge as to any individual 
 act of the alien. His beliefs, however, and the order (not specified) of 
 which he is a member and active worker are such as 'would make it 
 very probable that he has been teaching and advocating anything and 
 everything in tlie interest of himself and this order. He has been pub- 
 lishing a newspaper in Everett, and has been a street speaker and an 
 active organizer for the People's Council. He was posted as to the 
 laws of the United States and was undoubtedly prepared to defend 
 himself on all charges contained in the warrant ..." 
 
 What Is Anarchy? 
 
 At this point it may be material to consider what has been 
 held to constitute anarchy by the courts in the past. It will 
 become increasingly important in the immediate future for 
 them to determine whether political beliefs independent of un- 
 lawful action will be sufficient to include an alien within the 
 terms of the Exclusion Laws. That the government's intention 
 is to include all aliens familiarly known as "Reds" within the 
 Act and ask for their exclusion, is, as we have seen, being brazen- 
 ly asserted by the press. 
 
 The courts of this State and the United States have defi- 
 nitely held that a person may peacefully advocate a change of 
 government by lawful means and not come within the "An- 
 archy" laws. Nevertheless, in the first of the cases cited, that 
 of Joseph Komes, Judge Knox, (vide Appendix III to this re- 
 port), decided contrary to the technical interpretation of the 
 meaning of the word "Anarchist."^ 
 
 1. Enc. Brit. Vol. I, 11th Ed. page 917 is illuminating: 
 
 "It is important to remember that the term anarchist is inevitably used 
 rather loosely in public in connection tvith the authors of a certain class of 
 murderous outrages and that the same looseness of definition often applies 
 to the professions of "anarchism" made by such persons. As stated above, 
 a philosophical anarchist would repudiate the connection. And the general 
 
 17
 
 It is challenging to observe how far we have departed from 
 our traditions as expressed in Congressional debates and deci- 
 sions, by adopting a policy which in effect bars out and deports 
 all political refugees and forever destroys the much-famed 
 "right of political asylum." When the Immigration Bill of 
 
 public view which regards anarchist doctrines indiscriminately is to that ex- 
 tent a confusion of terms." 
 That the temi "anarchist" in its legal usage, contemplates only criminal 
 
 anarchy is shown by the decision in the case of Von Gerichten vs. Seitz, 84 N. Y. 
 
 Supp. 968, where the complainant charged a slander in that the defendant 
 
 referred to the plaintiff as an anarcliist. The court says: 
 
 "The student of social science and systems may discriminate between 
 the mere theorist who propounds doctrines that are regarded by a vast major- 
 ity of the people as impracticable and demoralizing and the destroyer of 
 government .... but the law takes cognizance of criminal anarchy only, 
 and that is defined in the section of the Statutes above quoted. There may 
 be, as is urged here, anarchy which is not under the condemnation of the 
 court and with which we have no concern." 
 The official viewpoint of the Department of Justice is evidenced from the 
 
 following excerpt of an address on "The Suppression of Anarchy" by Hon. James 
 
 M. Beck, Attorney General of the United States on January 21, 1902. (Reported 
 
 American Law Review). 
 
 "On the threshold of the discussion it is necessary to define the term 
 "anarchy." The word imports nothing more than disbelief in the efficacy 
 of any form of governmep.t. The vagaries of the human mind are like the 
 ways of Providence, 'mysterious and past finding out,' and there is unques- 
 tionably a class of honest and laiv-abiding visionaries, who in a nebulous and 
 semi-lucid way, believe that the interest of society tvould be promoted by the 
 abolition of all government whatever. These doctrinnaries do not believe in 
 war, or the taking of human life for any cause whatever. Violence has no 
 part in their propaganda, tvhich is purely educational in character. This 
 class of so-called philosophical anarchists is small in number, and does not 
 ordinarily fall within the commonly accepted definition of the word, which 
 in common speech and to the common understanding is applied to those who 
 seek the abolition of government by violence. To prevent, however, any 
 criticism or question of constitutionality any legislation should pre- 
 liminarily define anarchy as a movement or conspiracy to subvert 
 and destroy organized government by violent and unlawful means." 
 In Bliss's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL REFORM are described the two 
 branches or divisions of Anarchy, — the individualist and the communist. 
 
 "The individualist anarchists, though perhaps the fewer in number, are 
 in this country especially, the abler body of thinkers, and carry out to their 
 fullest logical results the principles which a great many individualists accept 
 but do not fully carry out. Individualist anarchists do not believe in the use 
 of force — not because they hold it wrong to use it, but simply because they 
 are aware that the use of force never truly liberates, while their aim is 
 absolute liberty — their motto being 'Liberty, not the daughter but the mother 
 of order.' They start from the philosophy of individual sovereignty and apply 
 it to the problem of social science with relentless logic. 
 
 "Anarchist communists, on the other hand, form a wholly different school 
 of thought. They do not believe in government and they do believe in over- 
 throwing it by force." 
 
 18
 
 1903 was up for enactment in the Senate the following debate 
 took place between two Senators. The exclusion clause in ques- 
 tion was the following: "Polygamists, anarchists or persons who 
 believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of any 
 government, of the Government of the United States, or of all 
 governments." (See Congressional Report, Volume 36, Part 
 I, Page 1,43). 
 
 Mr. Hoar: If the Senator will allow me to call his attention to 
 it, he certainly, I think, on reflection will not wish to retain the words 
 'of any government' because there are governments of the world that 
 ought to be overthrown by force or violence. What does the Senator 
 say as to the government of the Moros at tliis moment? 
 
 Mr. McComas: I think that remote, insular propositions need 
 not be interpolated in a definition of the propagandist of anarchy by 
 violence. 
 
 Mr. Hoar: I do not know that I as a member of the Senate of 
 the United States want to particularize all the governments. We may be 
 on friendly terms with them; but there are governments in this world 
 that I, for one, would overthrow by force and violence very quickly 
 if I could." (Congressional Record, Volume 36, Part I, Page 44). 
 (Italics ours). 
 
 The act subsequently passed and the words "any govern- 
 ment" were omitted. Let this be compared with the Amend- 
 ment of 1918 which provides for the exclusion of aliens, who 
 "advocate the duty, necessity or propriety of the unlawful as- 
 saulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific 
 
 individuals or of officers generally or any other organized 
 
 government because of his or their official character." 
 
 The Revocation of Naturalization 
 
 As Appendix IV there is included in this report a de- 
 cision rendered by Judge Haight,^ revoking the naturaliza- 
 
 1. U. S. vs. Wusterbarth, 249 Fed. 908. Vide also U. S. vs. Damer, 249 
 Fed. 989. 
 
 19
 
 lion of a citizen because of fraud. This case attracted con- 
 siderable attention at the time, but the procedure it illustrates 
 is by no means novel. In 1912 a Western judge in the case 
 of v. S. vs. Raverat^ revoked the naturalization papers of a man 
 who had become a citizen in 1896 on the ground that the man 
 was not of good moral character when admitted to citizenship 
 and had made the fraudulent statement that he was. These pre- 
 cedents open the door for wholesale revocation of citizenship 
 papers on the theory that the applicants for citizenship 
 fraudulently stated that they were not opposed to organized gov- 
 ernment. Thus not only may aliens be deported under our 
 present Deportation Laws but naturalized citizens 
 as well through the revocation of their naturalization. 
 
 It may not be amiss to mention this point the anomalous 
 position of those who declare their intention to become citizens 
 and never complete their naturalization. Not only are they sub- 
 ject to deportation in the same manner as if they had never de- 
 clared their intention, but when deported may find themselves in 
 a country to which they are strangers for the reason that they 
 have renounced their allegiance to that country. Such aliens, 
 deported to the country of their birth, can be barred by that 
 country as aliens and will consequently be aliens the world over, 
 people without a home, or as the German Municipal law calls 
 them, Heimatlos. World outlawry! Is this to be the fate of those 
 who advocate the reform of political institutions and the organ- 
 ization of labor? 
 
 It is much to be feared that under the present system the 
 number of persons who will thus lose their citizenship will in- 
 crease. In his excellent treatise, Diplomatic Protection of 
 Citizens Abroad, Borchard says, on page 591: 
 
 "A person in this position cannot call upon the diplomatic pro- 
 
 2. U. S. vs. Raverat, 222 Fed. 1018. 
 
 20
 
 tection of any state, and it is said that the anomalous situation of a 
 German who by residence abroad for ten years, under the law of June 
 1, 1870, lost his German nationality, led to the enactment of the new 
 law of 1913. The United States has seemingly lent its aid to the 
 perpetuation of this unfortunate system by certain provisions of the 
 Act of March 2, 1907. For example, the presumption of expatriation 
 on the part of a naturalized citizen by a residence of two years in his 
 native state or five years in any other state, may well leave such a per- 
 son without any nationality. Less justifiable, however, is the provision 
 of Paragraph 3 according to which 'any American woman who marries 
 a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband,' apparently re- 
 gardless of whether his national law so provides. Not only may this 
 provision be unenforceable, but it may easily result in depriving a 
 woman of American citizenship without conferring upon her any other. 
 The rule stated by Field, that 'a person who has ceased to be a member 
 of a nation, without having acquired another national character, is 
 nevertheless deemed to be a member of the nation to which he last be- 
 longed, except so far as his rights and duties within its territory, or in 
 relation to such nation, are concerned' can hardly be considered as a 
 recognized rule of international law." 
 
 Thus are native American women marrying for- 
 eigners also subject to deportation and exclusion. In 
 
 this connection it is interesting to recall the prediction of Edgar 
 Lee Masters and Clarence S. Darrow, made in the Turner case, 
 in 1903: 
 
 "It is only a step from this power to the right to control citizens 
 in their beliefs and speech. Some new sophistication of the Constitu- 
 tion will furnish the reason for reviving the terrors and persecutions 
 of the middle ages. If men can be deported at any time within three 
 years they can be deported within any time whatsoever, be it twenty or 
 forty years. If the sovereign powers of the federal government warrant 
 Congress in excluding an alien for a good reason or a bad reason and 
 for deporting him within any time within three years, he can be deported 
 whenever his proscribed principles, whatever they may be, are dis- 
 covered by the Federal constabulary. And thus by no stretch of imagin- 
 ation do we see the law develop into an engine of despotism to be used 
 upon citizens of long residence in this country. And if these laws can be 
 
 21
 
 made valid against aliens then natured born American citizens can 
 likewise be proscribed and outlawed as to every right or privilege 
 coming under the power of the federal government. The prohibi- 
 tion against ex post facto laws will not hinder Congress under 
 such an interpretation of the Constitution from attaching to the laws of 
 naturalization a provision to withdraw citizenship and to deport at any 
 time whatsoever and whensoever the proscribed principles of the un- 
 fortunate man are ascertained.'"^ 
 
 Native Bom Citizens of Foreign Parentage 
 
 Over and above such patent injustice to admitted aliens, 
 the fact should not be overlooked that it has even become possible 
 to exclude or deport citizens of the United States by merely hold- 
 ing them as aliens and then putting them to proof of their nativ- 
 ity. The Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Chin Ah Yoke 
 vs. United States,^ admitted that it was obviously difl&cult in 
 many cases to produce proof of nativity, and though the proof 
 of the defendants having been bom in the United States was 
 quite clear, he was nevertheless deported. 
 
 Present Outlook 
 
 It is not pertinent to discuss here the propriety or moral 
 right of a nation to exclude aliens. Such a discussion would 
 take us into the field of ethics. The fact is that at the present 
 time Congress has power to decree the exclusion of aliens 
 forthwith^ without assignment of cause and without a trial, 
 
 1. While the author owes a great deal to the brief of these attorneys, it 
 should be said that the greater part of this report had been written before 
 he secured it through the courtesy of Mr. Theodore Scliroeder. 
 
 2. Chin Ah Yoke vs. White, 246 Fed. 940. 
 
 3. The Supreme Court of the United States has held regarding the rights 
 of exclusion (Nashimam Eleu vs. U. S. 142 U. S. 659) what is believed to be a 
 general principle regarding this matter: 
 
 "It is an accepted maxim of International Law that every sovereign nation 
 has the power as inherent in sovereignty and essential in self preservation to 
 forbid the entrance of foreigners within its domains or to admit them only 
 
 22
 
 or after a trial so grossly inadequate as to be a mere travesty 
 of justice. Such in fact are most of the hearings before the 
 Immigration Authorities. 
 
 On the other hand, we have always had our ardent advo- 
 cates of a liberal immigration policy, and shall have as long 
 as railroads, mines, wheat belt, and shops are in want of cheap 
 labor. Bank presidents, archbishops, rabbis, professors will 
 all sing praises of the new immigrant and cite the time-worn 
 examples of Carl Schurz, Dr. Jacobi, and others. Reverse the 
 picture, however; begin to organize this cheap labor; teach it 
 to meet the increased cost of living with collective bargaining; 
 then will these eulogists undergo swift metamorphosis and re-ap- 
 pear as "vigilantes," "protective," and "law-and-order" leagues. 
 Propaganda will immediately be set afoot to impress the public 
 with the menace of the foreigner, and the once welcomed im- 
 migrant now appears in the daily press as "bomb-thrower," 
 "wheat-burner," "anarchist." 
 
 The hysteria soon reaches Congress, and exclusion and de- 
 portation of immigrants is the order of the day. We have en- 
 tered upon a period of reconstruction which will involve the 
 
 in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." 
 The Supreme Court has also held to a similar efiFect as to the rights of expul- 
 sion of aliens, in the case of Fong Yue Ting vs. U. S. 698, 711. 
 
 "The right to exclude or expel aliens or any class of aliens absolutely or 
 upon certain conditions in war or peace is the inherent and inalienable right 
 of every sovereign and independent nation, essential to its safety, its indepen- 
 dence and its welfare." 
 
 This right however, has been qualified by usages of International Law and 
 Treaties. For instance, in a case in which it was sought to expel an American 
 citizen from a foreign country, the American viewpoint was expressed by Secre- 
 tary Gresham (in the Wiener case) thus: 
 
 "That universal sense of right and justice which suggests that no man 
 should be condemned ivithout a hearing would seem to require that the per- 
 son singled out for expulsion should as a general rule, first be notified of the 
 charges against him and given an opportunity to refute them. If the case 
 is so urgent and the presence of the foreigner so dangerous to the State that 
 this cannot with safety be done, the expelling Government is under obliga- 
 tion to the Government of the person expelled to explain the grounds of its 
 action, by not only asserting, but proving the existence of facts sufficient to 
 justify the expulsion." Vide also U. S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. 
 
 23
 
 working class in much economic distress. Labor will look to 
 Congress for relief, and Congress will be forced to "do some- 
 thing." Deporting aliens is a measure which at the same time 
 relieves the legislative conscience and places the blame for 
 industrial unrest squarely upon the unpopular wing of the 
 workers. The coming Republican Congress can be expected to 
 increase rather than lessen the drastic tenor of the Immigration 
 Act. At the present time the law in its application resembles the 
 lettre de cachet of the Bourbons. It is being used to silence all 
 opposition and to render impotent all those who dissent or object. 
 In view of Judge Haight's decision in New Jersey, it is parti- 
 cularly obnoxious. 
 
 Commissioner Caminetti's reputed statement of January 
 10th, that the Immigration Service "will not arrest, detain or 
 deport anyone merely for membership in the I. W. W." would 
 be more reassuring were it not for the records in some of the 
 cases described above. 
 
 The immigrant population here has indubitably done its 
 share of building and improving the conditions of this country. 
 It has done its share of fighting and dying for it — both on battle- 
 fields, and in mines and shops. It has therefore as much right 
 to a say-so about the improvement of living conditions in this 
 country as the native population. If the immigrant seems 
 stronger in his protest than the native, it is because his protest is 
 immediately stigmatized as a distinctly foreign one, and also be- 
 cause the immigrants in this land are the poorest working class — 
 the class which does the greatest amount of hard labor and which 
 suffers most from discrimination. The weapons which Congress 
 has placed in the hands of the reactionaries, by the enactment 
 of a law capable of the interpretations which have been placed 
 upon the one in question, will soon stifle all opposition and make 
 every immigrant, whether naturalized or not, insecure in his 
 
 24
 
 position in this country. His political status will be reduced to 
 that of an abject and fearing slave of the Government. 
 
 Let us remember one of our earliest immigrants, one who 
 helped to write the Declaration of Independence, who first used 
 the words "United States of America" — Thomas Paine. I do 
 not hesitate a moment to say that under the present system of ex- 
 clusion and deportation, the author of "Common Sense," the 
 man who helped to cheer and encourage the Revolutionary 
 forces at Valley Forge, would be the first to be branded "An- 
 archist" and cast off by the very country which he fought so 
 hard and bitterly to establish. 
 
 We are about to found a League of Nations on the theory 
 that the peoples of the earth have so much in common that it is 
 impossible to injure one without injuring all. To cast out men 
 and women, whose young and strong years of labor have been 
 freely given to this country and to dump them back into a foreign 
 land whose very tongue they may have forgotten, as a punish- 
 ment for criticism of our institutions, — is not that a contradic- 
 tion of the very spirit of such a League? 
 
 In submitting this report I can suggest no remedy for the 
 situation except such as may be derived from Congressional 
 action. The Bourbons who have "forgotten nothing, and learn- 
 ed nothing" are again seeking to penalize men by excluding 
 and deporting them merely for their opinions and beliefs in 
 order to stamp out "dissent and similar crimes." I can but 
 hope, however, that the general public, once fully informed 
 about the workings of this law, will demand its immediate 
 restriction or repeal. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 CHARLES RECHT, 
 
 Counsel 
 
 25
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 Elxcerpts from the Immigration Law, bearing on Deportation, 
 
 together with the Amendment of 1918. 
 
 Sec. 19. That at any time within five years after entry, any 
 alien who at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the 
 classes excluded by law; any alien who shall have entered or who shall 
 be found in the United States in violation of this act, or in violation 
 of any other law of the United States; any alien who at any time after 
 entry shall be found advocating or teaching the unlawful destruction 
 of property, or advocating or teaching anarchy, or the overthrow by 
 force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all 
 forms of law or the assassination of public officials; any alien who 
 within five years after entry becomes a public charge from causes not 
 affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent to landing; except as 
 hereinafter provided, any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprison- 
 ment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this 
 country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five 
 years after the entry of the alien to the United States, or who is here- 
 after sentenced more than once to such a term of imprisonment because 
 of conviction in this country of any crime involving moral turpitude, 
 committed at any time after entry; any alien who was con- 
 victed, or who admits the commission, prior to entry, of a felony or 
 other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; .... Pro- 
 vided further. That the provision of this section respecting the depor- 
 tation of aliens convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude shall 
 not apply to one who has been pardoned, nor shall such deportation be 
 made or directed if the court, or judge thereof, sentencing such alien 
 for such crime shall, at the time of imposing or passing sentence or 
 within thirty days thereafter, due notice having first been given to 
 representatives of the State, make a recommendation to the Secretary 
 of Labor that such alien shall not be deported in pursuance of this act; 
 nor shall any alien convicted as aforesaid be deported until after the 
 termination of his imprisonment: Provided further. That the provi- 
 sions of this section, with the exceptions hereinbefore noted, shall be 
 applicable to the classes of aliens therein mentioned irrespective of the 
 time of their entry into the United States: Provided further. That the 
 provisions of this section shall also apply to the cases of aliens who 
 come to the mainland of the United States from the insular possessions 
 thereof: Provided further. That any person who shall be arrested under 
 
 26
 
 the provisions of this section, on the ground that he has entered or been 
 found in the United States in violation of any other law thereof which 
 imposes on such person the burden of proving his right to enter or 
 remain, and who shall fail to establish the existence of the right 
 claimed, shall be deported to the place specified in such other law. 
 In every case where any person is ordered deported from the United 
 States under the provisions of this act, or of any law or treaty, the 
 decision of the Secretary of Labor shall be final. 
 
 Sec. 20. That the deportation of aliens provided for in this act 
 shall, at the option of the Secretary of Labor, be to the country whence 
 they came or to the foreign port at which such aliens embarked for the 
 United States; or, if such embarkation was for foreign contiguous 
 territory, to the foreign port at which they embarked for such territory ; 
 or, if such aliens entered foreign contiguous territory from the United 
 States and later entered the United States, or if such aliens are held 
 by the country from which they entered the United States not to be 
 subjects or citizens of such country, and such country refuses to per- 
 mit their re-entry, or imposes any condition upon permitting re-entry, 
 then to the country in which they resided prior to entering the country 
 from which they entered the United States 
 
 Sec. 28. That any person who knowingly aids or assists any 
 anarchist or any person who believes in or advocates the overthrow 
 by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or who 
 disbelieves in or is opposed to organized government, or all forms of 
 law, or who advocates the assassination of public ofiBcials, or who is 
 a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teach- 
 ing disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advo- 
 cates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful as- 
 saulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individ- 
 uals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or 
 of any other organized government, because of his or their official 
 character, to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires 
 with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such 
 anarchist or person aforesaid to enter therein, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a felony, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of 
 not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than five years, 
 or both 
 
 Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien who advo- 
 cates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property to enter the 
 United States shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on convic- 
 tion shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by im- 
 prisonment for not more than six montlis, or by both such fine and 
 imprisonment. 
 
 These sections are amplified by Rule 22 of the Immigra- 
 
 27
 
 tion Rules, such rules having by virtue of the law the same 
 effect as the law itself. Sub-division 1, Rule 22, provides: 
 
 Subdivision 1, Classes of warrant cases. — All cases in which 
 aliens may be arrested and deported are either stated in detail or men- 
 tioned in Section 19. They fall into the following divisions. With 
 respect to each of these divisions the law is retrospective or not and the 
 time within which deportation proceedings may be instituted is limited 
 or not, as indicated below. 
 
 (a) Any alien who has entered the United States prior to May 
 1, 1917, and who at the time of entry was a member of any one of the 
 classes excluded under any provision of the Immigration Act of Feb- 
 ruary 20, 1917; limitation five years; retrospective. 
 
 (i) Any alien who may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term 
 of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime 
 involving moral turpitude, unless such alien has been pardoned or the 
 court or judge sentencing him has recommended to the department, 
 at the time of imposing sentence or within 30 days thereafter, that he 
 be not deported; limitation — that the crime shall have been committed 
 within five years after entry; retrospective with respect to time of 
 entry, but not retrospective with respect to conviction; deportation 
 shall not occur until termination of imprisonment. 
 
 (j) Any alien who may be sentenced more than once to imprison- 
 ment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this coun- 
 try of a crime involving moral turpitude, unless such alien has been 
 pardoned or the court or judge sentencing him has recommended to 
 the department, at the time of imposing sentence or within 30 days 
 thereafter, that he be not deported; no limitation; retrospective 
 with respect to time of entry, but retrospective with respect to con- 
 viction; deportation shall not be effected until termination of imprison- 
 ment 
 
 (s) Any alien who was convicted or who admits the commission 
 prior to entry of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving 
 moral turpitude; no limitation; retrospective. 
 
 (t) Any alien who shall be found advocating or teaching the 
 unlawful destruction of property; no limitation; retrospective. 
 
 (u) Any alien who shall be found advocating or teaching an- 
 archy, or the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the 
 United States or of all forms of law or the assassination of public 
 officials; no limitation; retrospective. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that these sections are supple- 
 mented by an amendment passed in October, 1918, which 
 provides as follows: 
 
 28
 
 "BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REP- 
 RESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 
 CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, That aliens who are anarchists; aliens who 
 believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States or of all forms of law; aliens who dis- 
 believe in or are opposed to all organized government; aliens who ad- 
 vocate or teach the assassination of public officials; aliens who advo- 
 cate or teach the unlawful destruction of property; aliens who are 
 members of or affiliated with any organization that entertains a belief 
 in, teaches, or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States or of all forms of law, or that entertains 
 or teaches disbelief in or opposition to all organized government, or 
 that advocates the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assault- 
 ing or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or 
 of officers generally, of the Government of the United States or of any 
 other organized government, because of his or their official character, 
 or that advocates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property shall 
 be excluded from admission into the United States. 
 
 Sec. 2. That any alien who, at any time after entering the United 
 States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become 
 thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in 
 Section I of this act, shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of 
 Labor, be taken into custody and deported in the manner provided in 
 the Immigration Act of February fifth, nineteen hundred and seven- 
 teen. The provision of this section shall be applicable to the classes 
 of aliens mentioned in this act irrespective of the time of their entry 
 into the United States. 
 
 Sec. 3. That any alien who shall, after he has been excluded and 
 deported or arrested and deported in pursuance of the provisions of this 
 act, thereafter return to or enter the United States or attempt to re- 
 turn to or to enter the United States shall be deemed guilty of a felony, 
 and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for 
 a term of not more than five years; and shall, upon the termination 
 of such imprisonment, be taken into custody, upon the warrant of the 
 Secretary of Labor, and deported in the manner provided in the Im- 
 migration Act of February fifth, nineteen hundred and seventeen." 
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 Letter of John Meehan to Inspector McKee 
 
 Ellis Island, N. Y., 
 
 Dec. 5, 1918. 
 
 Mr. McKee:— 
 
 I understand I am to sail for England tomorrow. Would it be too 
 much for me to ask that I be given suitable clothing so that I may leave 
 
 29
 
 as I entered almost a quarter of a century ago? No charity organization 
 donated the clothing I then wore. I have been forced to wear out. in 
 idleness all those I had when arrested almost nineteen months ago. Am 
 I not justified in asking whoever is responsible for the use of this force 
 ti furnish me with those things. I must have unless I am to be looked 
 on in commiseration and my health menaced. I see clearly what is 
 ahead of me hence this note to you. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 John Meehan. 
 
 Dec. 9th. 
 
 Nothing doing here for you, says Mr. McKee, so I leave ragged 
 and bare-headed. I wrote again on the 8th was that censored also? 
 I have been here a year this is the first time I was notified to write 
 on only one side of paper. However, we must take into consideration 
 the fact that the war is over (?) so it is not necessary to save paper 
 to win it. 
 
 J. M. 
 
 Appendix Ila 
 
 Letter of John Meehan to Charles Recht, Attorney 
 
 Ellis Island, N. Y., 
 
 Dec. 5, 1918. 
 Mr. Charles Recht, 
 Dear Sir: — 
 
 Received your letter and enclosures. I believe the U. S. has 
 nothing to say of the country, that is, the country to which I am to 
 be deported. It's up to the Canadian Government. Under the circum- 
 stances the latter is not justified in prohibiting me landing in that 
 country. However, I hear I am to be shipped Saturday next, being 
 eager to leave this place, drop the hope willingly. Please accept my 
 thanks for going to so much trouble on my account. Had you not come 
 I am sure the powers that be would not have taken action. When you 
 asked for a pass the news was phoned over, and they got down to 
 business at once. Of course this is only surmizing but I think it hits 
 the truth. Thanking you again, 
 
 Gratefully yours, 
 
 John Meehan. 
 
 More Power to You! 
 Note: — We endeavored to have Meehan deported to Saskatche- 
 wan where he had a brother, instead of to England where he was a total 
 stranger; but the Canadian Government objected. (In Canada it is a 
 crime to belong to the I. W. W. organization). 
 
 30
 
 APPENDIX III 
 Judge Knox's Decision in the Lopez Case 
 
 The traverse herein raises only questions of law and as a conse- 
 quence the record of the case before me is sufficient for its disposition. 
 
 The relator objects to his deportation upon the ground that since 
 he is a "Philosophical anarchist" rather than the type which believe in 
 assassination and other violence for the accomplishment of their ends, 
 he does not come within the class of persons denounced by the Im- 
 migration Act of February 5, 1917. 
 
 The opportunity is thus afforded me to enter upon an expression 
 of my views as to the varying degrees of anarchy with which society 
 is more or less afflicted. However, I shall refrain and content myself 
 solely with the observation that in my judgment, the very theory of 
 anarchy is opposed to that of organized government. The theory of 
 anarchy and that of government must at all times be in conflict, and 
 I cannot believe that the philosophical anarchist, at least so far as his 
 ultimate purpose is concerned is any less dangerous than is the advo- 
 cate of violence. Indeed in a sense the insidious character of the 
 teachings of the one is more to be feared than are the teachings, and 
 activities of the other. It may be that I am lacking in liberality of 
 thought, but I am unable to divorce my mind from the idea that the 
 doctrinnaire who spreads his doctrine that all forms of government as 
 we know them shall be subverted to a so-called citizenry of the world 
 is an anarchist, and as such comes within both the terms and spirit 
 of the Act of Congress upon the subject, and that such person may 
 lawfully be excluded from the country. I find no merit in the tech- 
 nical objections raised. The conclusion that the relator has been found 
 advocating and teaching anarchy is amply sustained by the record and 
 the writ of habeas corpus will accordingly be dismissed. 
 
 JOHN C. KNOX, 
 
 V. S. D. J. 
 December 9, 1918. 
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 Judge Haight's Decision in U. S. vs. Wusterbarth 
 
 (District Court, D. New Jersey. May 13, 1918). 
 Haight, District Judge. This is a proceeding instituted by the 
 United States attorney for this district under section 15 of the Natural- 
 ization Act of June 29, 1906 (34 tat. L. 596, 601, c. 3592 [Comp. St. 
 1916, §4374] ) , to cancel a certificate of citizenship granted to Frederick 
 W. Wusterbarth, the respondent, by the court of common pleas of the 
 county of Passaic, in the state of New Jersey, on the groimd that it 
 was fraudulently and illegally procured. The certificate was issued on 
 
 31
 
 November 3, 1882; the respondent being a native of Germany and a 
 subject of the German emperor. The fraud alleged is that the respon- 
 dent declared under oath that he absolutely and entirely renounced and 
 abjured all allegiance and fidelity to any sovereignty, and particularly 
 to the emperor of Germany, whereas in fact he did not do so, but, on 
 the contrary, retained an allegiance to Germany and its ruler. The 
 matter has come on for hearing on the issues raised by the petition of 
 the district attorney (to which were attached affidavits supporting its 
 allegations), and the anwser of the respondent. Upon the hearing the 
 government proved, in substance, the following facts, viz.: 
 
 Within a few days after the outbreak of the present war between 
 the United States and the German Empire, the respondent was ap- 
 proached by two ladies interested in a local chapter of the American 
 Red Cross, in an effort to induce him to contribute money to that or- 
 ganization, upon which appeal the respondent became angry, and re- 
 plied in substance that he would not do so; that he would do nothing 
 to injure the country in which he had been born, brought up, and 
 educated. Subsequently, in the month of June following, another 
 woman, who was likewise interested in the same chapter of the Amer- 
 ican Red Cross, visited him, and asked him to become a member. He 
 angrily refused to do so, stating that he would give no money to send 
 soldiers to the country where he was born and educated, and, in reply 
 to some arguments which the solicitor advanced, stated that she did 
 not know what it meant to be born in a country, and then have men 
 go over and fight against that country. In the month of November, 
 1917, the respondent was approached by two gentlemen, in an effort 
 to induce him to subscribe to the funds which the Young Men's Chris- 
 tian Association was then raising for war work. At that time he 
 stated he would do nothing to help defeat Germany and in response 
 to a question as to whether he did not want America to win the war 
 he replied that he did not; that he had relatives in Germany. He made 
 the same rejoinder to the question as to whether he did not want the 
 American soldiers in camps and cantonments to be well taken care of; 
 and, in reply to a statement made to him that he was better off than 
 most Americans, he replied that he only came to this country on a 
 vacation or visit 
 
 The question, therefore, on which the decision of this case de- 
 pends, is whether it may be legitimately inferred as a fact, from his 
 
 32
 
 present state of mind, coupled with the circumstances to be hereinafter 
 referred to, that he was of the same mind at the time he took the oath 
 of allegiance and renunciation. In that aspect the case is one of first 
 impression, so far as I am informed or have been able to ascertain. 
 It must be borne in mind that the respondent did not express any dis- 
 satisfaction Avith the aims and purposes of this country in the present 
 war, or with the reasons which had induced Congress to declare war, 
 but that he boldly took the position that he would do nothing to injure 
 the country of his birth, and did not wish this country to win the present 
 war, because of the ties which bound him to Germany. As the years 
 succeeding his naturalization passed, coupled with the fact that he 
 continued to dwell in our midst, associate with our citizens, receive the 
 benefits which this nation and its institutions have conferred upon him, 
 acquire property here, and hold public office (as the proofs show that 
 he did), it is natural to presume that his affection and feeling of 
 loyalty and allegiance to this country would increase, and that any 
 ties which bound him to the country from which he came would cor- 
 respondingly decrease. 
 
 If, therefore, under such crciumstances, after 35 years, he now 
 recognizes an allegiance to the sovereignty of his origin, superior to 
 his allegiance to this country, it seems to me that it is not only per- 
 missible to infer from that fact, but that the conclusion is irresistible, 
 that at the time he took the oath of renunication, he did so with a mental 
 reservation as to the country of his birth, and retained towards that 
 country an allegiance which the laws of this country required him to 
 renounce before he could become one of its citizens. Indeed, for the 
 reasons just stated, his allegiance to the former must at that time have 
 been stronger than it is at present. Whatever presumption might other- 
 wise arise in his favor from the apparent fact that during the interven- 
 ing years he has lived as a good citizen of this country is of no weight, 
 when it is considered that nothing has happened during that time to 
 call forth a manifestation of his reserved allegiance, and that as soon 
 as something did happen — i. e., the war between this country and 
 Germany — he immediately manifested it. 
 
 U. S. vs. Wusterbarth, 249 Fed. 908. See also Report of U. S. Attorney 
 General for 1918, pages 39 and 746, where the process is csdled "Denaturalization 
 Proceedings" (sic) . 
 
 33
 
 National Civil Liberties Bureau 
 
 41 Union Square, New York City 
 Publications for Distribution. 
 
 CIVIL LIBERTIES 
 
 The Issues Price per 100 
 
 Why Freedom Matters, by Norman Angell. 3c $2,00 
 
 The World Safe for Democracy, by John A. Hobson 
 
 (reprinted from the Survey) 2c $1^ 
 
 Freedom of Speech and of the Press ; extracts from 
 the writings of statesmen and scholars arranged by 
 John Haynes Holmes. 3c $2.00 
 
 Why Should There Be an Amnesty?, an argument for 
 
 the release of political prisoners. Ic JiO 
 
 American Deportation and Exclusion Laws, by Charles 
 Recht, Counsel for the New York Bureau of Legal 
 Advice 3c $2.00 
 
 Special Cases. 
 
 War-Time Prosecutions and Mob Violence (an anno- 
 tated list of cases down to date). 5c $3.50 
 
 Espionage Act Cases (a 100-page pamphlet with ex- 
 tracts from decisions, charges, etc., in important $1.00; in lots of 
 war-time cases). 10 or naore, 75c. 
 
 The Conviction of Mrs. Kate Richards O'Hare and 
 
 North Dakota Politics. 3c $2.00 
 
 The Truth About the L W. W. (Facts in relation to 
 
 the Chicago Trial). 5c $3.50 
 
 or Rags an' Bottles, a description of the Sacramento 
 trial of the L W. W., reprinted from the Nation of 
 January 25, 1919. 2c $1.25 
 
 Conscription and Liberty of Conscience. 
 
 War's Heretics, a plea for the conscientious objector 
 
 (August, 1917). 3c $2.00 
 
 The Rebel Soul and the World, reprinted from The 
 
 Soul as It Is, by Prof. Gilbert Murray. Ic .50 
 
 Political Prisoners in Federal Military Prisons. 3c $2.00 
 
 A Sympathetic Strike in Prison, how a prison reform 
 
 was brought about by conscientious objectors. Ic JSO 
 
 Your Amish Mennonite, by William Hard; the story 
 of the conscientious objector in America, reprinted 
 from the New Republic of February 1, 1919. 2c $1.25 
 
 Leaflets. 
 
 The United States Supreme Court on War-Time Lib- 
 erties. (Ex Parte Milligan). 
 Mob Violence and the Law. 
 The President on Mob Violence (July 26, 1918). 
 Leaflet Descriptive of the Bureau's Work. 
 
 Set of one each of the above publications except Espionage Act 
 Cases, will be sent upon receipt of $.30. Any citizen will be put on 
 the regular mailing list on application. 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free 
 
 Free
 
 I