CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

I also oppose statehood for Alaska.

Soiae Senators have asked on the floor

of the Senate why the junior Senator

from Texas and other Senators who are

opposed to statehood for both Territories should have voted to tie Alaska to

the Hawaiian bill. I have explained,

and I wish to repeat, that, in my opinion,

geographically Alaska is situated better

for statehood than is Hawaii; that

actually, in my opinion, r. better case

was made for the admission of Alaska;

and that I do not believe it would be

fair to admit Hawaii and not admit

Alaska as a State at the same time.

Of course, I was motivated in my vote,

further, by the fact that it might be

possible, by tying the two Territories

together, to cause the defeat of the entire measure in the House of Representatives.

But I wish to repeat, Mr. President,

that many Senators who are opposed to

the entry of the two Territories as

States voted as they did because it was

felt that if Hawaii were admitted, Alaska

also should be admitted at the same

time.

The four reasons for my opposition

to Hawaiian statehood are as follows:

First, the nearest Hawaiian Island is

more than 2,000 miles from the west

coast of the United States. I believe it

would be a bad precedent to admit to

the Union an island Territory which is

noncontiguous to other States, and

which forms no part of the American

continent.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Texas yield?

Mr. DANIEL. I am glad to yield to

the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SMATHERS. I wonder if the

Senator from Texas observes, as I do,

that there are now on the floor only 1

Republican Senator and only 3 Democratic Senators. In view of that, does

the Senator from Texas recall the number of Senators who were in attendance

at the time hearings were held on Hawaiian statehood, and the number of Republican Senators who were present?

Mr. DANIEL. I may say to the Senator from Florida that at times, I think,

only the chairman or the acting chair- man was present, especially when we

had before the committee witnesses who

testified with respect to the influence of

the Communists upon the economy and

the political life of the islands.

Members of the Senate who would

Jump to investigate communism anywhere else in the United States, or in

any of its Territories, seemed not to want

to go into the matter in Hawaii. Yet I

will say frankly that I have not seen evidence of so much Communist domination of the economy or political life in

any part of the United States or its Territories as I have seen with respect to

Hawaii.

The Senator from Florida is correct;

very few members of the committee were present to hear the testimony. It simply seems that the people of the United

.States have taken it for granted that it

would be desirable to admit the two

Territories as States. It would be so nice. It would do so much good for the

people who want to have their Territories become States.

The political platforms of both the

Republican and the Democratic Parties

have said it would be all right to admit

the Territories as States, and we seem to take it so much for granted that I

feel the entire trouble is that a great

many Members of the Senate have not

gone into the facts and have not heard

the evidence which some of us are trying

to bring out on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. DANIEL. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The distinguished junior Senator from Texas is

making a very able speech and is bringing out some very important facts. I

wonder if he would agree to a unanimous-consent request that I be permitted

to suggest the absence of a quorum, without his losing the floor, so that other

Senators may be present to hear what

the distinguished junior Senator from

Texas is saying.

Mr. DANIEL. I appreciate the desire

of the senior Senator from Texas, and I

will yield for the purpose he has sug- gested, although I may say that I am afraid that too many Members of the

Senate are not interested in hearing a discussion of the issue. Nevertheless, I

appreciate the efforts of my distinguished

colleague, and I should be glad to afford an opportunity to other Senators to hear

my remarks.

Mr. President, I yield for the purpose

suggested by the distinguished senior

Senator from Texas.

Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, will

the Senator yield to me for one other

question?

Mr. DANIEL. I yield.

Mr. SMATHERS. Does the Senator

from Texas have any idea where other

Senators are getting their information on which they expect to base their votes,

if they did not attend the hearings and

if they do not listen to the debate? Does

the Senator know where they are getting

their information?

Mr. DANIEL. Yes. Some of our colleagues get their information from the

platforms of the parties.

Mr. SMATHERS. Does not the Senator agree that the bill now pending is

probably one of the most important

measures which will be considered by

the present Congress, and that if once favorable action is taken, it cannot be

undone; once we get a new State into

the Union, we can never get it out; and

that we would set a precedent which

would forever after plague us? Yet our colleagues are not concerned with hearing debate on this important question.

Does not the Senator think that is a sad

commentary?

Mr. DANIEL. I agree with the Senator that if we admit into the Union a non-contiguous island Territory which

is not within the continental limits of

this country we will be setting a precedent with respect to other Territories

and islands. The Republican platform

states that that party is in favor of ultimate statehood for Puerto Rico. The

Virgin Islands, Guam, and many other

of the island Territories will ask for

statehood.

The second point which I shall bring

out in a few moments by citing facts

and figures is that every Senator who

votes for statehood for the two Territories will be voting to give up one

twenty-fifth of his State's and his people's proportionate representation on the

floor of the Senate, and to bring in new

Senators who can cancel out the votes

of any four Senators present on this

floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. PresidentMr. DANIEL. I yield to my colleage,

the senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I

may be permitted to suggest the ab- sence of a quorum without the Senator's

losing his right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

PAYNE in the chair). Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request?

The Chair hears none, and it is so or- dered.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I suggest

the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Secretary will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and

the following Senators answered to their names:

Anderson Hill Monroney

Barrett Ives Payne Bush Johnson, Tex. Purtell

Butler, Md. Kefauver Smathers

Daniel Kerr Smith, Maine

Duff Knowland Watkins

Ellender Lehman Young Gillette Malone

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is not present.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to

request the attendance of the absent

Senators.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sergeant at Arms will execute the order of

the Senate.

After a little delay, Mr. AIKEN, Mr.

BEALL, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BRICKER, Mr.

BRIDGES, Mr. BYRD, Mr. CAPEHART, Mr.

CARLSON, Mr. CASE, Mr. CHAvEZ, Mr.

CLEMENTS, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CORDON,

Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. DWORSHAK, Mr.

FERGUSON, Mr. FLANDERS, Mr. FREAR,

Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. GORE, Mr. GREEN, Mr.

HAYDEN, Mr. HENDRICKSON, Mr. HENNINGS, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. HoEY, Mr.

HOLLAND, Mr. HUNT, Mr. JACKSON, Mr.

JENNER, Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, Mr.

JOHNSTON of South Carolina, Mr. KILGORE, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr. LANGER, Mr. LENNON, Mr. LONG, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. MARTIN, Mr. MCCLELLAN, Mr.

MILLIKIN, Mr. MORSE, Mr. MURRAY, Mr.

NEELY, Mr. POTTER, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr.

SCHOEPPEL, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.

STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. THYE, Mr.

UPTON, Mr. WELKER, Mr. WILEY, and Mr.

WILLIAMS entered the Chamber and an- swered to their names.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo- rum is present.

WILHELM ENGELBERT-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 106)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United States,

which was read and, with the accom3380 March 17
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE

panying bill, referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary and ordered to be

printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval

Senate bill 153, a bill for the relief of

Wilhelm Engelbert.

This measure would grant the status

of lawful permanent residence in the

United States to Mr. Engelbert upon payment of the required visa fee.

Mr. Engelbert is a native and citizen

of Germany who was born in Dortmund,

Westphalia, on July 27, 1905. He entered the United States illegally on December 31, 1926, as a deserting seaman,

with the intention of remaining here

permanently.

Between 1926 and the outbreak of

World War 11 in 1939, the alien did nothing to regularize his status in the United

States. In fact, according to the record

set forth in the committees' reports upon

this bill, his actions indicate clearly that

he thought of himself as a German and

showed his allegiance time and again as that of a German national.

After the United States entered World

War II, Mr. Engelbert was interned as an

enemy alien. He remained an internee

until July 1, 1948. In due course a warrant for his deportation to Germany was

issued in 1943. This warrant, issued on

grounds of illegal entry, was outstanding

at the time of his release from alien

enemy proceedings. Applications for reconsideration and reopening of the deportation hearings have been denied by

the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Although it appears that to a certain

extent Mr. Engelbert's motives in becoming a member of the Nazi Party, registering for service in the German Army,

equipping himself with German money

to defray the cost of a trip to Germany,

and other acts demonstrating allegiance

to Germany, may have been dictated by a

desire to assist his mother and to obtain

legal entry into the United States, the

fact remains that he did nothing to regularize his status for some 12 years. Furthermore, from 1939 until the end of

World War II there is nothing in the

record of this case to indicate that Mr.

Engelbert showed real willingness to accept the responsibilities of a permanent

resident of the United States. On the

contrary, he sought repatriation to Germany during the war and it was not until

after victory had been assured in Europe

in 1945 that he withdrew his application

and requested adjustment of his immigration status.

Under these circumstances, I see no

basis for setting aside the requirements

of the immigration law.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 17, 1954.

MRS. MARGARETH WEIGAND-VETO

MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 105)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate the following message from

the President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying.

bill, referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary and ordered to be printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, the enrolled bill (S. 502) for the

relief of the estate of Mrs. Margareth

Weigand.

Kurt P. Weigand, the son of Margareth Weigand and a German citizen

resident in the United States, was interned in 1942 as an enemy alien. Following his release from parole in 1945,

he died in Fargo, N. Dak., by accidental

drowning. Owing to his coverage under

the Social Security Act, his mother, a

resident and citizen of Germany, became

entitled to a lump sum death benefit

award. The amount of the award was

vested in the Attorney General by Vesting Order 17973, dated May 31, 1951,

which was issued in accordance with the

provisions of the Trading With the

Enemy Act. This bill would provide for

the return of the amount so vested to

the estate of Mrs. Margareth Weigand.

Mrs. Weigand was alive at the date of

issuance of the vesting order.

Section 39 of the Trading With the

Enemy Act, as amended, in general prohibits the return of property or interests

in property vested from nationals of

Germany or Japan unless such nationals

are eligible for return under the provisions of section 32 of the act. Mrs.

Weigand did not file a claim under section 32 for return of the amount vested,

and the record contains no indication

that she would have been eligible for

return. Her ineligibility would disqualify

her successors in interest. If ineligible,

the enactment of the bill would authorize

the transfer of the property to the beneficiaries of her estate contrary to existing general law.

Moreover, even if these beneficiaries

were eligible for the return of the property, this bill would bestow a preference

on them by setting aside the claims procedures prescribed by general law.

There is no apparent reason for singling

out the beneficiaries for preferential

treatment of any nature.

The reasons urged in support of this

measure would equally apply to the cases

of thousands of other enemy nationals

whose property in the United States was

vested pursuant to the provisions of the

Trading With the Enemy Act.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 17, 1954.

NEW MEXICO SENATORIAL ELECTION CONTEST

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Texas [Mr. DANIEL] has

the floor.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. DANIEL. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, yesterday I announced to the Senate that

I intended to propound a unanimousconsent request with respect to the New

Mexico senatorial election contest. The

proposed unanimous-consent agreement

was read for the information of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the

proposed unanimous-consent agreement

be read again for the information of the

Senate now that we have had a quorum

call.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the Secretary will state the

proposed unanimous-consent request.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That on the calendar day of

Tuesday, March 23, 1954, at the hour of 5

o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to vote

without further debate, upon any amendment or motion, if any, proposed to the

resolution (S. Res. 220) recommending that no Member of the Senate was elected from

the State of New Mexico in the 1952 general

election, and upon the said resolution.

Ordered further, That the time between

12 noon Monday, March 22, and 5 p. m. Tuesday, March 23, be equally divided between

the proponents and opponents of the said

resolution and controlled, respectively, by

Mr. BARRErT and Mr. HENNINGS.

Mr. KNOWLAND. For the benefit of

Senators who were not in the Chamber

when the subject was previously discussed, I should state that it was the desire of Senators on the other side of the

aisle and of Senators on this side of the

aisle that the Senate may have a period

of more or less uninterrupted debate on

the subject, inasmuch as the seat of a

Member of the Senate is involved. Under the proposed unanimous-consent

agreement 2 days of debate on the contest would be provided, with the time to

be equally divided.

It was also the desire on the part of

Senators on both sides of the aisle that

a day and hour certain be set for the

debate and the vote so that Senators

who intend to leave the city would have

advance notice of the consideration of

the resolution, and could arrange to return to the city, or would not make engagements which would take them away

at that particular time.

So far as I am concerned, I wish to do

everything possible to comply with the

desires of Senators on the other side of

the aisle, and I have told them that if

Tuesday is not satisfactory I would be

perfectly willing to agree to Wednesday,

Thursday, or any other day.

In fairness to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CHAVEZ],

whose seat is involved, and in fairness

to his colleagues on both sides of thG

aisle, I believe a specific date should be

set.

Of course, it is true that on Monday I

could move to displace the unfinished

business and to take up the resolution,

and following its disposition I could move that the Senate return to the consideration of the unfinished business.

That, however, would not fix a date and

hour certain, for the debate and the

vote, unless subsequently a unanimous

consent agreement were entered into.

That would mean that Senators would

not know until next week on what day

or hour the New Mexico election resolution would be taken up.

It is entirely immaterial to me, because I expect to be here all of this week

and all of next week, and for the balance

of the session. However, I know that some Senators must attend to official

business out of the city and that other

Senators have important engagements

which must be met, and which have been

1954 3381