Apart from its significance as a part of a regrettable movement, sponsored by certain sections of the press and certain organizations, this bill in itself would be merely a little silly. It adds to the present provisions of the law relating to the exclusion and deportation of anarchists, similar provisions relating to Fascists and Communists. Communists and Fascists are then defined, with one exception, in the same way as anarchists are at present defined. (It obviously makes no difference whether an alien is deported with a tag of anarchist or a tag of Communist or Fascist on him.) The exception, which is found in subparagraph 5, which is to be added to section 1 of the act of October 16, 1918, as amended, is the only thing new which is in the bill. It says that an alien is a Communist or Fascist, and so excludable or deportable, who advocates the overthrow of the government of "countries not under the control of Communists or Fascists, and the establishment in place thereof of" certain specified regimes. Inasmuch as the present law (as needlessly repeated in this bill) already reaches the same result with respect to aliens advocating the overthrow of this Government, the new subdivision adds to the present law only a provision excluding or deporting aliens who express views about some government other than our own, and not Communist or Fascist. Passing over the obvious undesirability of our thus indirectly taking sides in the governmental disputes of other countries, it would appear to be extremely difficult for the Secretary of Labor or for any other official in our Government to determine whether some other governments fall within the ban proposed by this bill. In this connection it is interesting to note that among the governmental regimes whose advocacy is proscribed by this bill are "national or state socialism" or "totalitarian state", both of which epithets have been variously ascribed to the present regime in this country. A similar confusion of phraseology exists, of course, with respect to the terms "Communist" and "Fascist."

Furthermore, subparagraph 5, which would be added by this bill, would, even if it were practicable, accomplish practically nothing more than can be and is being accomplished under the present law. It is apparently not denied by the majority of the committee that Communists are being deported under the present law. It is, however, suggested that there may be a small kernel of profit in this bill in that it would relieve the Government of the burden of proving in each case the principles of the communist organization to which a particular alien belongs. Apparently it is thought that this results from the provision of the bill that includes in the proscribed doctrines "the platform, program, and the objectives of the Third International, the Communist International, the Fascist Grand Council, or National Socialist Labor Party." It will, however, still be necessary for the Government to prove that the particular alien is affiliated with one of these organizations; and moreover, it is interesting to consider that the views entertained by these regrettable organizations at the time this bill is proposed may very well be changed in the future.

It is significant that no one is excited about this bill, or about the type of legislation of which it is representative, except the few elements referred to above. Neither the Department of Labor nor the

1 See e. g. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103; U. S. ex rel. Yokinen v. Commissioner, 57 F. (2d) 707, cert, den. 287 U. S. 607.

Department of State nor any other branch of the administration has asked for this bill. The conservative public opinion of the country is apparently opposed to this type of legislation, if we may judge by the editorial expressions of the New York Times, the New York HeraldTribune, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, the ScrippsHoward papers and others. Finally, this country has learned by bitter experience that laws repressing ideas and opinions have always merely helped to drive underground such ideas and opinions, to intensify and publicize them, and to embitter and make martyrs of their propoments.

READJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNT BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND VERMONT

MAY 27, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. PLUMLEY, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany S. J. Res. 89]

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. J. Res. 89) directing the Comptroller General to readjust the account between the United States and the State of Vermont, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment.

The purpose of said joint resolution is to grant to the State of Vermont the same relief as has been accorded to the States of Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and North Carolina. The claims of these States grew out of advances made to the United States to aid in the national defense during the War of 1812-15 with Great Britain, and were of like character to that of Vermont, and have all been appropriated for and paid by Congress.

Facts with respect to the claim of the State of Vermont are brought out in a memorandum hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A."

The facts are more fully set forth in a letter from the Comptroller General of the United States to the Senate, in response to Senate Resolution No. 224, Seventy-third Congress, second session, a copy of which letter, bearing date of February 19, 1935, is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit B." In said letter, the Comptroller General finds the balance due the State of Vermont in the sum of $92,868.90.

With respect to the above audit, the Comptroller General holds that, as this audit was made by direction of a Senate Resolution, and not by joint action of both Houses of Congress, the audit is not one that has been made by virtue of an Act of Congress, and, therefore, that he is not authorized to certify the result of such audit to Congress

H. Repts., 74-1, vol. 2-71

as an estimate of appropriation, germane to a deficiency appropriation bill.

It is for the purpose of clothing the audit which the Comptroller General will make under this joint resolution (in the above amount or in such other amount as he may find due), with a certified status, that the State of Vermont seeks the enactment of said S. J. Res. 89.

EXHIBIT A

MEMORANDUM BEARING ON THE 1812/15 WAR CLAIM OF THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senate Joint Resolution 89, directing the Comptroller General of the United States to adjust the account between the United States and the State of Vermont, arising out of the War of 1812.

The claim of the State of Vermont, to which Senate Joint Resolution 89 is directed, is fully set forth in Senate Document No. 23, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, being the results of an audit by the Comptroller General of the United States made by virtue of Senate Resolution No. 224, Seventy-third Congress, second session, as set forth in the Senate document cited.

The above audit was submitted to the President of the Senate on February 19, 1935, and discloses that there is due the State of Vermont from the United States, the sum of $92,868.90.

The Senate Resolution, No. 224, under which the audit by the Comptroller General was to be made, directed that the same rule should be applied to the account of the State of Vermont, as had been applied to the settlement of the account of the State of Maryland under the act of March 3, 1857 (11 Stat. 229). This act provided for the application of the present-day rule of computing interest on the principal up to a partial payment, and applying the payment first to the extinguishment of the accrued interest.

The above act of March 3, 1857, further provided:

"Second, interest shall be allowed the State of Maryland on such sums only on which the State either paid interest or lost interest by the transfer of an interest-bearing fund." (See p. 2, of S. Doc. No. 52, 70th Cong., above-cited.) Upon the passage of the act of March 3, 1857, the provisions of section 12 thereof, were submitted to the Attorney General for an opinion as to its scope. In this opinion, the Attorney General made the following statement:

"Where Congress authorizes the payment of a debt, with interest, this, without more, means that legal interest shall be paid on the whole of the principal for all time during which the principal has been unpaid * Congress has given

to Maryland interest on her debt; and I look in vain for anything which declares that in erest shall be stopped before the principal is paid." (See 9th Atty. Gen. Op 57.)

This provision of law came to be known as the "Maryland Rule", and has since been applied to all of the claims of the States for interest growing out of the War of 1812-15.

The State of Maryland received under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1857, the sum of $275,770.23.

The State of Massachusetts received under the provisions of the act of July 8, 1870 (16 Stat. 197) in the application of the same rule, the sum of $678,362.42 for herself and the State of Maine.

Thereafter, other States sought payment of their interest accounts, growing out of their expenditures in the War of 1812, and measures directed to that objective received favorable reports at various times from the 49th to the 56th Congresses. (See exhibit A, hereto attached.)

In the year 1902, there was before the Senate an omnibus claims bill in which was included a provision for the payment of the claims of the States, for interest payments during the War of 1812-15.

This bill was favorably reported by Senator Warren on February 12, 1902. (See S. Rept. 493 on H. R. 8587), wherein the following statement is made:

"During the war of 1812-1814 the States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and the city of Baltimore expended certain moneys for military purposes. Whether wisely or unwisely, after many years the United States treated the sums thus expended as