Speech #720074839

No one knew whether he was in favor of the sales tax or against it. yet. this was one of the most important issues that ever faced the people of this country. Several years ago he spoke in favor of rugged individualism and against great combines of business and wealth. but in his last message to Congress he advocated that the Sherman antitrust law be amended in favor of certain industrial and manufacturing groups in this country. In his message to Congress he said. "I recommend that immigration restriction now in force under administrative action be placed upon a more definite basis by law." This meant that he was in favor of a 90 per cent cut in our quota laws. and it was so interpreted by the membership of the House. but in spite of his recommendation the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor by their statements discouraged any attempt to make a permanent reduction of immigration to the extent of 90 per cent. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor appeared before the Senate committee on December 18. 1930. and urged that the department be "relieved of the present responsibility" of cutting immigration to 90 per cent by administering the publiccharge provisions of the immigration act of 1917 by withholding visas. Secretary Stimson declaring that his "department was in complete sympathy with this legislation." and so forth. with which Secretary Doak said his department agreed. and the Secretary of State in his letter to Chairman HATFIELD. dated February 5. 1932. said that he still entertains the same opinions he expressed to the Senate committee on December 18. 1930. But when the Secretary of State appeared through his representative before our Committee on Immigration and Naturalization when we were considering a number of bills for the purpose of either prohibiting immigration altogether or reducing the quota to 90 per cent and putting Mexico and the Western Hemisphere upon a quota basis. the Secretary of State minimized the ne cessity for the enactment of any legislation. and. in fact. left the definite impression that the Secretary of State thought that such action was inadvisable. The Department of State made it plain that it opposed the placing of a quota on Mexico and the countries of the Western Hemisphere. and stated that such action would react unfavorably on our international relations and commerce. Mr. Hodgson stated that his department did not approve of the suspension of immigation. and neither he nor any other member of the Department of State would recommend the passage of any legislation further to restrict immigration. Secretary of Labor Doak appeared before the Senate Committee on Immigration March 24 and made it clear that he did not favor any restriction or stronger naturalization legislation at this time." Of course. this opposition of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Labor to immigrationrestriction legislation during the present session of Congress is in direct conflict with their public and published statements before the committee December 18. 1930. and in direct conflict with the Presidents recommendation to Congress last December. when he urged that the administrations administrative restriction efforts be put on a basis of law." In conclusion. Mr. Chairman. I challenge the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor to state in plain. understandable language whether or not they recommend the passage of the Moore bill reported favorable by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. or is the administration playing politics with this important question in order to get votes from both restrictionists and antirestrictionists. If the President really desires to reduce the enormous expenditures of the Federal Government. let him be specific and definite. and stop talking in general and in indefinite terms. which mean absolutely nothing.