restrictions on his conduct or activities as are prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization in his case.

The legislation lays down no standards for such restrictions, and indeed it would seem that restrictions can be varied from case to case, thus giving the Commissioner an unparalleled, unwarranted opportunity to secure information under subsection (b) (3) on the promise of issuing less restrictive regulations under subsection (b) (4). Such arbitrary power should not be placed in the hands of any man.

The bill permits the Attorney General at his discretion to imprison for life without trial persons who have committed no crime and, indeed, may be guilty of no wrongdoing of any sort. For example, under section 20 (c) a business visitor who entered the United States within 10 years before the issuance of a warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings against him and who, because of conditions in his homeland or for other reasons beyond his control, is unable to return homemay, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be denied the privilege of release under supervision * * * and * * may be taken into custody and transported to such place of detention as may be designated by the Attorney General and there * detained

indefinitely.

The alien is given the right to question the validity of his detention by habeas corpus. This he would have, regardless of the pending bill.

This bill presents a most momentous question of public policy, since it would inaugurate most radical changes in the treatment of aliens in deportation proceedings. Repercussions in foreign lands will be heard. Do not think that other nations will not retaliate against our nationals.

What the bill in its detention provisions proposes is not to implement deportation alone, but it also establishes a system of custody for aliens in deportation proceedings. from the inception of the process until they are actually deported; and if deportation cannot be had. then custody, supervision, and detention may be had definitely or indefinitely, for a day or days, a month or months, a year or years, in the discretion of the Attorney General.

Section 20 (c) says that the detention shall not be at hard labor.

The courts have repeatedly held that deportation proceedings are civil and not criminal in their nature (Zakonarte v. Wolf, 266 U. S. 272; U. S. v. Williams, 194 U. S. 289). That is why Congress has been permitted to provide for deportation through administrative proceedings without a jury trial and without the ordinary safeguards concerning rules of evidence. If Congress provides for indefinite detention even though not at hard labor (yet imprisonment) for deportable aliens, it would seem to follow that the accused is entitled to trial by jury, benefit of counsel, due process, reasonable bail, and all the other rights secured to persons accused or crime, under the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution. The Constitution applies to the prosecution of citizens and aliens alike (Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 U. Š. 238).

The draftsman of the bill had this in mind when provision was made for confinement "though not at hard labor" and for release in the discretion of the Attorney General "upon sufficient evidence of good cause."

It is difficult to see how the Constitution can be circumvented by referring to indefinite imprisonment as detention "without hard labor." Mr. Justice Brandeis in the Wong Wing case aforesaid wrote:

Moreover, the commitment in the Wong Wing case was not under sentence of a court or after conviction by a jury. It was by direction of a commission of the United States. The punishment by imprisonment was thus imposed under an Executive order, and hence was clearly void under the Constitution, whatever its character or incidents, its duration, or the place of confinement (Ú. S. v. Moreland, 258 U. S. 433, 443).

If this bill becomes law, the court will undoubtedly release a deportee detained-say at Ellis Island-for an indefinite period by the administrative order of the Attorney General and say, "This is imprisonment. What crime was committed? Was there a jury trial? Did the accused have benefit of counsel? Such punishment is illegal." The court will cut through all the subterfuges like "detention though not at hard labor" like a knife through hot butter.

Nor does the provision for release upon "sufficient cause" by the Attorney General cure the constitutional defect, since there is no definite or fixed standard as to what is "good or sufficient cause." Obviously what might seem "good cause" to one Attorney General might not seem so to another Attorney General. There is no legislative standard with which to measure the validity of the Attorney General's action.

Finally, the last section of the bill removes immigration proceedings of all kinds from the controls of the Administrative Procedures Act. This was tried in the Eightieth Congress and failed. The administrative law section of the American Bar Association opposes this change.

If there be any place where fair administrative procedure is vital it is where personal liberty of the individual is involved, as in deportation proceedings.

Truncating all immigration proceedings from the Administrative Procedures Act will establish a precedent for all other agencies to follow. That act would shortly have only piecemeal application.

TRANSFERRING A TOWER LOCATED ON THE LOWER SOURIS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN, INC., NORTH DAKOTA

AUGUST 4, 1949.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMPSON, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

(To accompany H. R. 3751|

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3751) to transfer a tower located on the Lower Souris National Wildlife Refuge to the International Peace Garden, Incorporated, North Dakota, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its amendment.

CLARK W. THOMPSON,

JAMES B. HARE,

ALVIN F. WEICHEL,

Managers on the Part of the House.

EDWIN C. JOHNSON,

ERNEST W. MCFARLAND,

CHAS. W. TOBEY,

Managers on the Part of the Senate.

STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 3751) to transfer a tower located on the Lower Souris National Wildlife Refuge to the International Peace Garden, Inc., North Dakota, submits the following statement which was agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

That the Senate recede from its amendment. The Senate amendment is as follows:

In line 7, after the name "North Dakota", insert a colon and Provided, That the International Peace Garden, Incorporated, North Dakota, shall pay 50 per centum of the appraised fair market value of the property as determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

CLARK W. THOMPSON,
JAMES B. HARE,

ALVIN F. WEICHEL,

Managers on the Part of the House.

O

PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT

AUGUST 5, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. COOLEY, from the Committee on Agriculture. submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 55111

The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5511) to amend the provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, relating to practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Strike out the letters "PACA" wherever they appear in the bill and substitute in lieu thereof the words "Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act" (the letters appear on p. 2, line 5; p. 3, lines 6 and 22; and p. 4, line 11).

STATEMENT

The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was adopted in 1930 to provide for regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture of interstate commerce in perishable agricultural commodities. Among other provisions, it provides for licensing of all dealers in and handlers of such commodities and for adjudication of complaints arising between shippers and licensees.

For the past 20 years the act has aided in suppressing fraudulent and unfair practices in the marketing of fruits and vegetables in interstate or foreign commerce. Its activities have become an integral part of the marketing of fruit and vegetables and it has the unanimous support of both producers and handlers in the fruit and vegetable industry. The work load under the act is increasing while the cost of enforcement has advanced, due to increased costs of salaries, transportation, and supplies. Although appropriations have increased to an amount in excess of the revenues from licenses and penalties, they