Mr. FEIGHAN. What would be his difficulty in returning? What charges would he have to face?

Mr. YOUNG. He could come in without a passport unless he were picked up by the FBI or somebody like that. He could go in or out of the country without a passport, unless you have this legislation.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I am saying if you do not have this legislation, and say a Communist leaves the country, and supposing that he acts in a manner that is against the best interests of the United States while he is abroad; when he comes back what is the situation? Do we readily admit him?

Mr. YOUNG. I think you would have to.

Mr. FEIGHAN. He violated the law. Is he subject to any

Mr. YOUNG. I think you would have to admit him. You might prosecute him for violation of a law; but, you see, under this legislation it is unlawful for him to leave the country without a passport, or to come in without a passport. There you have a violation of law.

But if there should be a hiatus between the effectiveness of the present law and this 215 in the Nationality Act of 1940, he could come and go without a passport.

Mr. PICKETT. Then the effect on that man we are discussing of the continuation of this legislation would be that by virtue of his departure and reentry, he has violated the law for which he could be prosecuted.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. In the first place, this law lays a heavy penalty on the person for departing, attempting to depart, or entering or attempting to enter without a passport. It also places a penalty upon any officer or employee of the carrier corporation who willingly participated in his departure. It also provides that the vessel or aircraft or whatever he departs on may be forfeited.

So the result is that no carrier will take a passenger outside the country without he is provided with a valid passport.

Mr. PICKETT. May I interrupt you, Mr. Young? I have a recollection that about 2 years ago there was somebody who escaped on a Polish ship that left this country, somebody we wanted here. I have forgotten the name of the man who was involved.

Mr. YOUNG. That was Eisler.

Mr. PICKETT. Would that situation we are discussing apply to that kind of a case?

Mr. Young. Was Eisler an alien?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Gerhardt Eisler was an alien. We refused an exit permit to him three times, but he surreptitiously went aboard the ship because we did not have enough inspectors to inspect everybody going aboard the ship, and he escaped in that way.

Mr. PICKETT. He thereby violated the law, did he not?

Mr. ALEXANDER. That is right.

Mr. PICKETT. This statute we are dealing with.

Mr. ALEXANDER. That is right.

Mr. PICKETT. And the carrier or some responsible officer of the carrier who knowingly permitted him to come aboard and thereby escape also violated the law. Is that right?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I think so.

Mr. PICKETT. That is at least one illustration of the type of case we are dealing with here.

Mr. YOUNG. Except I am talking about citizens. I might tell you about a case just to illustrate how this thing works. About a year

ago a well-known Communist applied for a passport and was refused. This woman attorney in New York, Mrs. King, who recently died-I think you read about it in the paper-fixed up an affidavit, a travel affidavit; and she took this Communist down to the wharves and tried to put him on the Polish ship Batory.

Mr. FEIGHAN. You say she made an affidavit?

Mr. YOUNG. She fixed up an affidavit. There are people who use affidavits.

Mr. FEIGHAN. What was the nature of the affidavit?

Mr. YOUNG. It is an affidavit explaining where he wants to travel and all that, gives his description, his picture on it; and she tried to get him aboard the Batory to go abroad on it. But a customs officer, noting that he had no passport, warned the officers of the ship Batory that if they tried to take him on board and take him away, they would stop the ship before it reached quarantine.

Mr. PICKETT. Did they take him in this instance, Mr. Young? Mr. YOUNG. No, sir, he stayed

Mr. PICKETT. They refused his passage, then?

Mr. YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. PICKETT. If we had not had this law in effect

Mr. YOUNG. If we had not had this law in effect, he could have gone out. Another instance you have read about in the paper is this singer, Robeson. He was stopped from leaving this country on two occasions. He wanted to get abroad to participate in Communist meetings.

Mr. PICKETT. How did he get abroad at the time he went and raised such a stink?

Mr. YOUNG. When was that?

Mr. PICKETT. I thought he did a couple of years ago, got over in Sweden or Norway or somewhere.

Mr. YOUNG. The answer to that is this: That until the Internal Security Act of 1950 was passed, there was no statutory declaration against issuing passports to Communists. The Communist Party was legal in this country. In order to refuse a passport under the Secretary's discretion, it had to appear from the record that his travel abroad would be inimical to the interest of the United States.

We did not have such a record at that time. We accumulated one subsequently from reports received from abroad.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Even right now if you do not have this law, there is no way of stopping him?

Mr. YOUNG. No, they could go abroad without a passport and be perfectly legal to leave the country.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Suppose a citizen of the United States who was classified as subversive goes abroad without the aid of a passport. He is a citizen of this country. Can he be prevented from reentering this country?

Mr. YOUNG. No, I do not think you can prevent a citizen from reentering the United States, but you can prosecute him when he gets back here.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. That is so in the case of a citizen who is not classified as subversive?

Mr. YOUNG. What is that?

Mr. BRICKFIELD. Let us assume that a citizen goes abroad without the aid of a passport, but he is not classified or considered as sub

versive. He attempts to return to the United States. What penalty and prosecuting procedures are then followed?

What I am trying to get at is this: There is no difference upon reentering into this country between a citizen who is considered subversive and an ordinary businessman who goes abroad for business purposes is there?

Mr. YOUNG. That could follow. But now the Secretary of State does have discretion under this act that he can waive the requirement of a passport to come in here. He can do that. It is not done often, but occasionally. I remember an old lady that came back from Europe, about 75 years old. Her passport had expired. It was no longer valid. She showed up at one of the airfields in New York.

She was perfectly innocent. She did not understand that her passport had expired. In that case we authorized the Immigration Service to permit her to enter without a valid passport. Of course she had a passport, but not a valid one.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. In any event, a citizen cannot be denied reentry into the United States, subversive or otherwise?

Mr. YOUNG. I do not think he can.

Mr. BRICKFIELD. The authorities can prevent him from leaving the United States if he is subversive?

Mr. YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Do you have any other statement to submit, Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. Simply this, that we feel it would be very unfortunate if there should be a lapse between the time that this law goes out of effect and the section 215 of the omnibus bill should come into force. There could be a lot of travel in between there by subversive people without passports. That is why we think that this should be enacted as a stop-gap measure.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURRUS. That is the last of our State Department witnesses. Mr. FEIGHAN. At this time we will adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Thereupon, at 11: 55 a. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

EMERGENCY POWERS CONTINUATION ACT

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE No 4,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, at 10:05 a. m., in room 345A, Old House Office Building, the Honorable Michael A. Feighan presiding.

Subcommittee members present: Representatives Feighan (presiding), Forrester, and Pickett.

Also present: Miss Velma Smedley, assistant chief clerk, and Mr. Cyril F. Brickfield, committee counsel.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Burrus, you have several witnesses?

Mr. BURRUS. Yes; we do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FEIGHAN. With whom did you wish to proceed first?

Mr. BURRUS. Before we proceed, I would just like to make a short statement. First I think we all know that the Japanese Peace Treaty was ratified and passed by the Senate. Secondly, I think the committee will be pleased to know that since our last meeting we were able to go over all the items that in any way affected the military with the professional staff of the Armed Services Committee; and they have raised questions only with two or three of the items. We are going to give them further evidence on those points.

The items that they raised the questions about were those that concerned contracting and procurement. They are items that we have not taken up yet, but the problem they pointed out there is that there may be some conflict between our items and Public Law 155, the Eighty-second Congress, I think it was, which was passed subsequent to the enactment of these items.

We propose to put in a simple amendment that there will be nothing in these provisions that will in any way affect, amend, or restrict Public Law 155.

The other item is that they are interested in having a little further conversation on the item that would continue the appointments of the Reserve officers.

Mr. FEIGHAN. We want a little more than conversation. We want you to present to us the reasons for the emergency.

Mr. BURRUS. I understand that, Mr. Feighan. I said we just presented this to the professional staff of the Armed Services Committee I thought it would make you feel a little more comfortable about some of these items, to know that they had also gone over them.

Mr. FEIGHAN. I wish you would proceed, because the House is going into session at 11 and we will not be able to continue thereafter.