Not long ago in the course of an investigation into the subject of deportations, the chairman of a congressional committee expressed his disapproval of the way in which matters were being conducted, and complained that the immigration authorities seemed to "give the benefit of the doubt to the alien in every case."

There are others among us who have disapproved of the way in which deportations have been carried on; but in most cases, our reasons were quite opposed to those of the congressman. So many eminent persons have protested against the injustice done by the Government agents that it is quite a pleasant contrast to hear them accused of being over-lenient.

But when we consider that these were the views of a man high in authority, we cannot feel so well pleased. When he makes this accusation, does he actually imply that the "benefit of the doubt" should be AGAINST the alien, that a man should be considered guilty until he is proved innocent? We thought that such views as these had vanished with the Dark Ages. Popular hysteria against "foreigners and anarchists" has gone too far already, without the addition of such attitudes as that of this gentlemen.

The last few weeks have witnessed a considerable change in the public attitude toward radicalism. At present the better sentiment leans toward moderation. We have begun to realize that wholesale deportations are not the best way to remove erroneous political ideas. In more than one case we find that palpable injustice has been done, and that individual rights have been shamefully violated, by unauthorized raids and arrests without warrant. If we do not want to supply "martyrs" to the radical cause, it behooves us to use clean methods in fighting it. If the immigration authorities are giving the "benefit of the doubt" to the accused, they are only acting in accordance with a tradition as old as the Anglo-Saxon race. For them to act otherwise would be at once impolitic and criminal.