Chapter 5 STATEMENT BY A JUDGE To Dignify and Emphasize the SIGNIFICANCE OF CITIZENSHIP1 By JUSTIN MILLER Former Associate Justice of The United States Court of Appeals War changes the emphasis of our national life, not only as it concerns military service, industrial production and internal revenue, but in its more intimate and intangible phases as well. In no area of our composite national consciousness is this change of emphasis more marked than in our attitudes toward the foreign-born people who have come to live among us. Our traditional, expansive welcome to the oppressed of all nations changes to an acrid challenge of their right and of their capacity to remain here. We err on the side of safety, perhaps, in "rounding up" those who are subversive or disloyal. But, having done so, and the first shock of apprehension having passed, we remember that most of these recent immigrants, like us or our forefathers, came here because they, too, preferred the freedom and opportunity of America to the oppressions and restrictions of old, encrusted civilizations; and that they, perhaps even more than many of us, are passionately devoted to the ideals and principles upon which our civilization is founded. Naturally, our attention turns to the naturalization process, which provides the bridge from foreign allegiance to American citizenship. Specifically, the thoughts of lawyers and judges turn to the award of naturalization and the induction ceremony, itself, supervision of which was delegated long ago,2 by Congress, to the judicial branch of our government. While no one questions the wisdom of that delegation of power, there are some who think that the courts have been too casual in its administration; that on some occasions the induction proceedings have had little dignity; that 1Reprinted from American Bar Association Journal. November 1942. 3 Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. 5 of these two agencies initiated a proposal for cooperation as contemplated by the joint resolution and sought the guidance of the courts in putting the proposal into operation. They requested the writer to act in an intermediary capacity in their behalf. He, in turn, asked the advice of Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, who responded cordially and approved action along the following lines: (1) Presentation to the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, for its adoption, of a resolution which shall call attention to the congressional joint resolution and request all federal judges to do whatever they can to carry out its purpose; (2) consideration of the subject by each Judicial Circuit Conference; (3) designation, by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, of a member of his staff to serve as a depositary of information upon the subject and an answerer of questions concerning it; (4) collection of information, from District Judges, concerning methods of cooperation and procedure ceremonies which they have used. During the intervening weeks a generous sampling has been made of the procedures and practices now being used by various federal judges, several of whom had, also, as judges of state courts, previously acted in naturalization proceedings. Generally speaking, the judges were strongly in favor of the several suggestions approved by Chief Justice Stone. In the succeeding paragraphs an effort is made to summarize the information and generalize the advice which has been received. Grateful recognition is due to district judges and circuit judges alike for their friendly cooperation. Those who read farther will be impressed by the serious effort which is being made to achieve the purpose of the joint resolution and by the imagination and resourcefulness which has been displayed in doing so. In view of judicial familiarity with standardized procedures—and the fact that Congress has on several occasions, recently, requested the judges to assume rule-making functions—it was thought proper, in the letter which was used for the present inquiry, to ask the judges to what extent the procedure of the induction ceremony should be made uniform. Generally, the replies advised against attempts at uniformity, except as concerns the general minimum specifications of the joint resolution. In fact, that 6 'Excerpt from a letter written by the Chief Justice under date of June 2, 1942: “I very heartily agree that anything that can be done to emphasize the dignity and solemnity of the procedure for naturalizing our new citizens should be done, and I am quite sure that the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges would welcome an opportunity to do something to further so worthy a cause. I answer specifically in the affirmative all the questions which you ask in your letter. I am sending it to Mr. Chandler, indicating to him that we might perhaps include your suggestions in the agenda for our next Conference." 6 For example, Judge Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr. says: “*** allowing full play for local differentiations, a general arrangement having uniform characteristics of dignity and appropriateness could be worked out." legislative declaration, itself, indicates congressional intent that there shall be considerable freedom in working out procedures adapted to the community, to the occasion, and, perhaps, even to the group which is being inducted. As a matter of convenience, it would seem wise that a more or less uniform order of events should be established. This would save the court and its officers a great deal of detailed planning for each occasion. Courts are accustomed to work in this manner, with certain duties to be performed by judge, clerk, marshal, attorneys, witnesses and jurors. In addition, to the extent that local uniformity could be secured-beyond the general concurrence in major phases of the ceremonial-much could be done to insure that continuous effort to dignify and emphasize the significance of citizenship, for which we hope, in peace time as well as in time of war. The specification, in the resolution, of "civil and educational authorities and patriotic organizations," obviously does not require the participation of all such agencies on all occasions. Indeed, it would be impossible to draw the line between ambitious volunteers, sincere or self-seeking; and if large scale participation were permitted it would quickly become impossibly burdensome to all concerned. We must conclude, therefore, that the judge should be, in fact, master of the ceremonies in the courtroom. To the extent that nonjudicial participants are permitted they should be designated by the judge with great care, not only because of their willingness but of their capacity to contribute, in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the occasion. It would seem inappropriate and unwise to insist upon participation by persons and agencies who would disrupt rather than aid the courtroom ceremonial. If properly qualified persons are not available, perhaps the judge should take the lead in developing community interest and in educating responsible people for effective participation. If Congress expected such work to be done by the judges it should give serious consideration to the number of judges which it has provided for all purposes. In this connection it must be remembered that there is much important work to be done both before and after induction into citizenship. Assuming that the naturalization ceremony is, or may become, the climax of the drama, nevertheless, nonjudicial officers and agencies have made and will continue to make large contributions to citizenship during the years which follow the filing of the "first papers" as well as during the years which follow naturalization. The important consideration which Congress had 'Judge Paul J. McCormick says, concerning this point: "*** the matter should not become grooved but . . . the individual method and treatment of the judge presiding should be preserved. This is especially true on account of the district judges being more conversant with what would be particularly helpful in their own areas than by having material come from outside." 'Judge Phillip Forman: "No amount of ceremonial at the time that citizenship is finally presented can erase from the mind of the petitioner brusque and harsh treatment received during the course of the prosecution of his application." in mind was that all these activities should be tied up effectively into the continuing effort contemplated by the joint resolution. To this end community programs should be planned to precede and follow the induction ceremony itself. For such work the nonjudicial participants are no doubt the better qualified; but by acting in close cooperation with the judge, the courtroom ceremonial can be advantageously integrated into the long-time, larger program. Perhaps the judge could be persuaded to appoint, for such purposes, a more or less permanent advisory committee, composed of civil and educational authorities and representatives of patriotic organizations. Perhaps the judge might be willing to act as chairman of the committee; and perhaps a much larger participation by bar associations could be thus secured. So far as concerns the courtroom ceremonial itself, minimum compliance with the spirit of the joint resolution would seem to require at least: (1) the rendition of the decree of naturalization; (2) the administering of the oath; (3) the address by the judge or his designated alternate; (4) some participation by civil and educational authorities and patriotic organizations. Perhaps the fourth requirement would be satisfied by the customary participation of the naturalization examiner. One or two judges suggested as much and indicated that in their opinion it would be unwise to depart from a strictly judicial procedure. Most of them, however, have invited the participation of other officers and organizations and, while preserving the formality and dignity of the judicial proceeding, have elaborated it in accordance with the spirit of the occasion. A number of the judges spoke of measures which they had taken to secure participation by persons and organizations who should be interested participants.10 There is considerable difference of opinion among the judges as to the wisdom of permitting others than the judge to address the new citizens.11 Certainly a judge 'Judge Merrill E. Otis: "* ** during the eighteen years of my service naturalization proceedings have always been conducted in a formal and dignified manner. has always been an address by the judge or by some invited and distinguished guest. There has always been a ceremony (usually conducted by the Daughters of the American Revolution) at which flags and copies of the Constitution are distributed to members of the class. There has been also a ceremony of the oath of allegiance to the flag. Occasionally a musical number has been added." 10 There 1o Judge Harry E. Watkins: “At other naturalization proceedings, I have invited and insisted on the bar association attending in a body, and have had the Boy Scouts attend in uniform . . . It seems well to rotate the organizations participating and taking an active part in the ceremony. For example, in the enclosed program, you will note the American Legion presented the souvenirs and the State President delivered the principal address. It is my plan to have the Daughters of the American Revolution perform similar duties at the next naturalization proceedings. This stimulates interest among the various organizations, and the competition produces the very best from each organization." [Italics supplied.] "Thus, Judge William C. Coleman says: "However, I feel that only the presiding judge and not 'some one designated by him' should address the new citizens, as provided |