During the hectic Christmas days of 1941 the arrangement at one time was that the first regiment of constabulary was to police Manila and hand over the city to the Japs on their arrival. At the last minute this order was changed and this regiment retired into Bataan. This I knew from a source different than Colonel Guido.

In one of my talks with him Colonel Guido told me that he was to remain in Manila for intelligence work. As I remember it, he had some sort of an alibi for the Japs that he was essentially a police officer. He got by on this for a long time and helped me get some American soldiers to the guerrilla camps near San Mateo. It would have been rash imprudence for us to meet in those days. My contact with the colonel was through Don Ricardo Gonzalez Lloret (formerly special attorney to President Quezon) and Edgardo Guerrero, who was in direct touch with two groups out in the San Mateo Mountains.

The Japs became very suspicious of the colonel and took him to Fort Santiago for several months-just how long I do not know. There he kept his mouth shut;

When he

he was interrogated about me, but gave the Japs nothing to work on. was released, he sent Don Ricardo to me at once with warnings for me. After some rest he evidently became active again, for he sent Don Ricardo to me to get help for escaped American soldiers hiding in Tayabas and Laguna.

Things were becoming very difficult for all. The Japs held nine of our fathers in Fort Santiago for months and executed our Father Consunji together with Colonel Thorpe, Colonel Neckar, Captain Barker, and about 20 others on October 2, 1943. In August 1943 I was taken to Fort Santiago for the first of three visits to that "Grand Hotel."

Finally, in January 1944, I was sent to Sto. Thomas Internment Camp together with six of our fathers released from Fort Santiago; and from that time on lost contact with the colonel.

One thing I forgot. I know that he was consulted about assuming full charge of the secret intelligence work in Manila; for the various groups saw need for coordination.

This was a most hazardous position, but the colonel said he would accept if the two or three ranking officers here agreed to him; some of these officers were Colonel Ramirez (surely killed by the Japs in Fort Santiago, for the family recovered his body) and Colonel Monzano, who, I believe, was definitely chosen after I entered Sto. Thomas and successfully got away to Australia.

Briefly, the colonel was loyal to his duty through situations which nobody, who has not actually experienced living under the enemy in occupied territory. can possibly appreciate.

May his soul rest in peace with those thousands of other unsung heroes whose nobility of soul and devotion to God and country are known to God alone.

Very sincerely yours,

Witnesses:

HENRY W. GREU, S. J.

J. P. MCNICHOLAS, S. J.

The committee, after consideration of all the facts in this case, is of the opinion that H. R. 3768, as amended, should be enacted, and it accordingly recommends that the bill do pass.

ALEXIS LEGER

JUNE 29, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

Mr. CHELF, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 3816)

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 3816) for the relief of Alexis Leger, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to grant the privilege of permanent residence in the United States to a citizen and native of France, a former high-ranking diplomat employed in the Library of Congress since 1940.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The pertinent facts in this case are set forth in a letter from the Acting Assistant to the Attorney General, dated June 16, 1949, to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which letter reads as follows:

Hon. EMMANUEL CELLER,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice relative to the bill (H. R. 3816) for the relief of Alexis Leger, an alien.

The bill would authorize the Attorney General to record the lawful admission for permanent residence of Alexis Leger as of July 14, 1940, the date on which he entered the United States in a diplomatic status, if he is otherwise admissible under the provisions of the immigration laws, and would authorize the Secretary of State to instruct the quota-control officer to make the appropriate quota deduction.

The files of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of this Department show that Mr. Leger was born in Pointe-a-Pitre, French West Indies, on May 31, 1887, and that he is a citizen of France. He arrived in the United States at Rouses Point, N. Y., on July 14, 1940, when he was admitted as a diplomat upon presentation of a French diplomatic passport. Mr. Leger, who is single, stated that he lived in the French West Indies until he was 10 years of age, when he was taken to Paris by his parents to attend school. In 1914 he entered the diplomatic service of that country and in 1916 was assigned to China as Secretary to the French Ambassador. In 1921 he returned to Paris, where he remained until 1940. He has been General Secretary of the French State Department in Paris with the rank of Ambassador of France.

Mr. Leger presently resides in this city. From 1940 until 1946 he was employed in the Library of Congress as a consultant on French literature, at a salary of $3,000 a year. In November of 1946 he received a 3-year appointment to write creative French literature for which he receives a grant of approximately $4,000 a year from the Mellon Foundation. Several persons who have known Mr. Leger since he has resided in this city have testified to his integrity and since the quota for France is not oversubscribed, Mr. Leger apparently could obtain a visa for permanent residence in this country, or could apply for suspension of deportation in the event that deportation proceedings are instituted against him. He has stated, however, that for him to acquire a permanent status in the United States other than by congressional action would be embarrassing in view of his position in the diplomatic service of France.

Whether the bill under consideration should be enacted presents a question of legislative policy concerning which this Department prefers not to make any recommendation.

Yours sincerely,

PETER CAMPBELL BROWN, Acting Assistant to the Attorney General.

After having considered all the facts in this case, the committee is of the opinion that H. R. 3816 should be enacted and it accordingly so recommends that the bill do pass.

1st Session

No. 946

AMENDING THE MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING STAMP

ACT OF MARCH 16, 1934 (48 STAT. 451; 16 U. S. C. 718b), AS AMENDED

JUNE 29, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 10761

The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1076) to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451; 16 U. S. C. 718b), as amended, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

Page 1, line 11, after the word "acquired" delete the word "after". Page 2, line 1, delete "July 1, 1949,"

This legislation has been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Interior recommends its enactment. A favorable report from Oscar L. Chapman, Under Secretary of the Interior, on H. R. 3711, a similar bill upon which your committee held hearings printed as an appendix of this report.

The principal purpose of the bill is to provide a means for more adequate development of the migratory waterfowl resources of the country. To accomplish this purpose the bill increases the fee for the Federal migratory bird hunting stamp from $1 to $2, thus doubling the fund derived from the sale of these stamps to be used for enforcement and related activities, and authorizes the acquisition and development of wildlife management areas, where hunting may be permitted, in addition to the acquisition and development of inviolate sanctuaries. Communications received by the committee indicate that there is confusion as to the purposes of this legislation and a misapprehension on the part of some people that this bill will permit the existing inviolate migratory bird sanctuaries to be opened to public shooting. There is nothing in this bill that will authorize the opening of areas heretofore acquired as inviolate sanctuaries, and it is not the intent of your committee that the presently existing inviolate migratory bird sanctuaries be opened to shooting.

The matter is fully clarified by section 2 of the bill as passed by the Senate and amended by your committee. This section is an amendment which was added by the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee to the original bill and now reads as follows:

SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 4 of said Act is further amended by deleting the period and inserting in lieu thereof a colon and the following: "Provided, That in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior not to exceed 25 per centum at any one time, of any area acquired in accordance with the provision of this Act, may be administered primarily as a wildlife management area not subject to the prohibitions against the taking of birds, or nests or the eggs thereof, as contained in section 10 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222; 16 U. S. C. 715i), as amended, except that no such area shall be open to the shooting of migratory birds when the population of such birds frequenting the area or in the migrations utilizing such area is on a decline, nor prior to July 1, 1952, or the date upon which the same has been fully developed as a management area, refuge, reservation, or breeding ground, whichever is later."

It is the opinion of your committee that with this amendment there will be greater duck production and more shooting for duck hunters. The increase of the fee for the Federal migratory-bird hunting stamp from $1 to $2 is simply a means to provide the financial aid required to carry out the other purposes of the act. In its present form, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act requires each person hunting migratory waterfowl to contribute $1 annually to the special fund for the acquisition, administration, maintenance, and the development of wildlife refuges, and for expenses in executing that act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In general the proposed increase in cost of the annual fee to be paid by a hunter, which fee is utilized directly for his benefit, is rather insignificant from the individual's standpoint. At the same time, it collectively is such an increase that, in the opinion of your committee, it will be quite effective in carrying out the general purposes and activities of the national wildlife restoration and management program.

The needs of the hunter, as well as of the game species, are becoming more apparent each year because of the encroachment of privately controlled hunting on what were formerly open hunting areas. Again, management of intensive concentrations of waterfowl requires more flexibility than is permitted under existing authority. Thus, the Fish and Wildlife Service reports that experience in problems of waterfowl restoration and management and the increasing concentration of hunting privileges indicate rather clearly the possibility of a new type of area that may be termed the "management area."

The bill provides that portions of acquisitions may be open to hunting at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Your committee feels that the proposal to include wildlife-management areas along with inviolate sanctuaries is sound and in the interest of good administration. There are some areas, particularly in the West, where it has been necessary for the Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire practically all of the wild-fowl habitat in a given area in order that the refuge might be controlled in an effective fashion. Some public shooting can be permitted on those areas without endangering the primary purpose of the refuge. Public hunting is now permitted on several areas under the control of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The original law which authorized the acquisition of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah provided that not less