as impractical. As such examinations take time, become burdensome, and not infrequently rob citizenship induction of its significance, the better practice would be to conduct them at sometime prior thereto. However, a distinction could be made between the courts that do not have time for individual examination and the courts, particularly those with small classes, whose judges do have time in which to deal with individual applicants. Although many judges frankly admit the impracticability of the individual examination to the courts with large classes, they recognize the merits of such examination when the applicants are few in number.

If the method of individual examination of applicants is followed, this examination should not be in the nature of a review of the work previously done by the examiner. It should be along lines designed to establish "an actual human personal relationship between the individual and the court as a representative of the Government." It should be of such a nature as to impress upon the mind of the petitioner that he is being given the personal attention of the court and that the court itself is personally interested in seeing him become a part of this Nation.

Some courts ask each applicant a few questions, inquiring about the length of time he has been in this country, country of birth, name, occupation, and such general questions as establish him as an individual in the eyes of the court. Other judges have requested the naturalization examiner to give similar information in behalf of each applicant, as a part of the recommendation to citizenship. Changing the questions as much as possible, to impress upon each applicant the judge's interest in each one, will tend to change the nature of the ceremony from that of a mere formality into a natural, personal relationship between the applicant and the court as a representative of the Government.

However, most courts, especially those with large classes, have adopted the procedure of accepting the favorable recommendation of the designated examiner. The designated examiner is required to submit his findings and recommendations to the court at the final hearing. Most of the courts, therefore, are prepared to recognize the examiner, or other official, and accept his report that the applicants presented are duly qualified and eligible for citizen

ship. This results in a smooth-running procedure, which avoids the disturbed state of mind on the part of the applicant that is sometimes caused by an examination in the courtroom. It has also been found that the system of approval or disapproval by examiners in preliminary hearings operates equitably.

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Like the opening of court, the taking of the oath should be divorced from routine and made impressive. The oath of allegiance to the United States is profoundly significant and soul searching and should be solemnly and impressively administered. Generally the clerk of court administers the oath. Sometimes he possesses a good voice, which may make his performance more effective than that of a judge who is not so well equipped vocally. However, some judges believe that the oath of allegiance should be administered by the judge himself. They consider it not only a duty but a privilege to administer the oath and make of it a ceremony of dignity with which to impress and honor the new citizens. Whether the judge, the clerk, or the deputy clerk of the court administers the oath, the important point is that it be done well. When the applicant for citizenship forswears allegiance and fidelity to his native land and pledges his faith and allegiance to his adopted country, he is entitled to have the oath that he takes clearly and impressively administered and not incoherently mumbled. Deep emotional responses can be aroused by an oath clearly and judiciously given and sincerely and thoughtfully repeated.

Some courts prefer that the candidates for citizenship remain silent while the oath is administered and show their affirmation by a clear "I do" at the end. Others require which seems more impressivethat the applicants repeat the oath of allegiance in unison as it is said to them in groups of words spoken distinctly so that they can easily and clearly repeat each phrase and understand its meaning.

The oath of allegiance is full of meaning for the new citizen. In the first part of the oath he severs the ties that bind him to the land of his birth. He renounces and abjures his allegiance to his native country. In the second part of the oath he pledges his faith and sole allegiance to the United States of America, and promises that

he will bear arms or perform noncombatant service or work of national importance, if required by law, for his adopted country. In essence, he begins life anew in the land of his adoption. Strong emotions must stir his soul as he renounces his native land-the home of his childhood, of his parents, and of his friends—and surrenders the flag of his native country for that of another. But the new allegiance, so assumed, does not and should not be considered to cut off the ties of friendship and love that bind the new citizen to his family, friends, and memories, as distinguished from the political allegiance that is forever cut asunder.

The simple words conveying citizenship take on a deeper meaning today than ever before. Many take this oath with tears of gratitude. They are joining the great family of citizens enjoying the cherished principles of freedom. They are pledging themselves to a great ideal, and are purposing to do their bit to sustain and uphold that ideal. They are becoming a part of this nation just as the nation becomes a part of them. They are coming into a heritage; they are being granted a privilege; they are being offered an opportunity.

ADDRESS TO NEW CITIZENS

Like the oath of allegiance, the address to the new citizens should be impressive and inspirational, a fitting climax to the naturalization proceedings.

Long before the passage by Congress of the joint resolution directing that: "Either at the time of the rendition of the decree of naturalization, or at such other time as the judge may fix, the judge or someone designated by him shall address the newly naturalized citizens upon the form and genius of our government and the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship," judges, or others designated by them, delivered these addresses in many Federal and State courts. In fact it was the beneficial results of these addresses that partly inspired the inclusion of the clause in the resolution designed to make the address a part of the procedure in every naturalization court. When and where the address should be delivered, by whom, and the type of address, were properly left by Congress to the judge of the court.

Generally addresses are delivered in the courtroom, although occasionally they are delivered sometime later in a ceremony honoring new citizens. The judge, or a guest, or both deliver an address.

Decision as to who should deliver the address was wisely left to the discretion of the individual judge. The judge is, and rightly should be, the one who is responsible for final naturalization. He is familiar with local conditions and practices and should be able to decide whether or not it is desirable that an outstanding citizen from a legal, educational, patriotic, religious, or other organization make the address to the naturalization class.

The practice of having an outside speaker is followed by many judges with apparent success. In some instances, perhaps, an outside speaker, such as a notable foreign-born citizen of the United States, can more effectively convey the significance of that citizenship. In other instances, undoubtedly the better medium for such expression is the judge himself.

Sometimes the address is delivered before the taking of the oath and sometimes afterwards. Quite frequently the oath itself forms the basis for the address. Some judges consider this an excellent time to explain the meaning of the oath and to dissipate any erroneous ideas concerning it. The opportunity is provided to give the new citizens a clearer conception of what is required in the renunciation of allegiance to their native countries and of what is included in the assumption of a new loyalty to the United States. Generally, whether inspired by the oath or not, the address centers around the theme of the implication of citizenship, emphasizing alike the duties and privileges, the obligations and rights of our American democracy. The address should be short, inspirational, and expressed in simple English.

A national crisis always brings resurgence of faith in the American way of life. In dark hours of our civilization, especially in times of war when the loyalty of all is essential to victory, more and more emphasis is given to the fact that all creeds and all races have made America. In order to create in the newly naturalized citizens a feeling of belonging to America, and a willingness to do their part for her, judges have pointed out contributions to the American way of life by such foreign-born Americans as:

JACOB RIIS from Denmark, whom President Theodore Roosevelt once characterized as the most useful American of his day and the nearest to the ideal of an American citizen. President Roosevelt called him the "brother to all men, especially the unfortunate."

MICHAEL ANAGNOS from Greece, who was once referred to by a Boston paper as "the man who taught the Greeks to learn and adopt everything that is good in American character; the man who did good for the sake of good; the man who expected every Greek to do his duty toward his adopted country." His fame belongs to the United States, but his services extended to all humanity.

JAMES JEROME HILL from Canada, who, as “the empire builder," made thousands of men and women happier because of his clear vision and faith in the future of the great Northwest.

MICHAEL PUPIN from Yugoslavia, the shepherd boy, who became one of America's greatest teachers and scientists. Among his inventions is the "tuning in" mechanism that controls every radio.

SAMUEL GOMPERS from England, through whose efforts the dignity and worth of labor became recognized.

Father EDWARD FLANAGAN from Ireland, who strengthened the fight against juvenile delinquency with the philosophy "there is no such thing as a bad boy," and who was recognized as an inspirational leader working in behalf of American youth.

JOSEPH PULITZER from Hungary, who founded the widely known newspaper, The New York World; who gave $1,000,000 to Columbia University for the first school of journalism in America; and who raised funds to bring the Bartholdi Statue of Liberty to America and place it at the entrance to New York Harbor.

CARL SCHURZ from Germany, who was the loyal friend of Abraham Lincoln and one of his first supporters for the Presidency. No citizen loved, or understood, his country better. America's finest concept of patriotism may be found in his immortal words: "My country right or wrong; if right to be kept right, if wrong to be set right.”

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL from Scotland, who gave to the world one of the greatest inventions of the age, the telephone. Bell's sturdy character and scientific achievements made him one of the greatest benefactors of mankind.

ANGELO PATRI from Italy, who, in his teaching, placed emphasis upon the child and helped the parent to understand the child; out of this grew the first Parent-Teachers Association in America—a historic milestone in the educational field.

414536 57-3