Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. FREE. Why do you make that answer, or why do you distinguish one case from another in that respect?

Mr. CRIST. Because an experience of 14 years or more in this particular work has demonstrated the fact that from 75 to 95 per cent of these cases are those of fair, straightforward, honest men applying for naturalization.

They have led honest lives and are of good moral character; their witnesses are there in the person of two citizens of the United States, who come because they know that they can vouch for the applicant's good moral character. The isolated case is the case where it is necessary to make a record, and in those cases a record is made as the basis for prosecution.

Mr. Box. How would they be segregated, or how are those isolated cases to be isolated or identified? There must be something to distinguish them from the other cases.

Mr. SABATH. There is an examination made in each case, and that gives the information to the department. The department then knows if there is any question, and if they believe that there may be some reason for refusing to naturalize such a man, I presume that they make a note of it and have a complete record made of such cases. Is that true?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

These gentlemen, as has been repeatedly stated, are experts in this field. They are trained men, and they are the only trained men in this business in the United States, in addition to the ones working under them or under this particular law. They know human nature from past experience, an especially that of the foreigner. They are trained in finding out the merits and demerits of the cases of those men. In handling applications for citizenship they believe in protecting American citizenship in all its sanctity and purity. They probably feel that more keenly than any other people in the United States, because of their business. In the discharge of their duties this sense of responsibil ty makes them bring all of that past experience to the front. They are quick to discern any weakness in an applicant.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to cut you off, but if we do not get along with this analysis of the bill we will not have time to hear any of these other gentlemen.

Mr. CRIST. Section 11, on page 18, brings together all of the exceptions to the general provisions of the law. There is practically nothing new in that. It is an assembling together of matter that is now the law or that has been reported on favorably by the committee. It relates to soldiers of the recent war, for instance, and those in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. The provisions as to seamen in the merchant marine is in the old law. In brief, that is the whole of that subject matter.

Section 12, on page 25, requires the oath of allegiance. of allegiance and requires it to be administered by the of the court in open court.

It sets forth the oath court or by the judge

Mr. Box. I want to respect the chairman's wishes about interrupt ons, but I want to say that in court proceedings in naturalization cases the oath of allegiance is sometimes muttered in a whisper in such a way that nobody can hear it. The whole proceeding does not occupy more than three-fourths of a minute. Now, does this mean that the judge has got to take that man up there and impress upon him some sense of the meaning of the oath before he swears him?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. The elimination of the witnesses will mean in the naturalization of 100 applicants the elimination of 200 of the 300 people who now come. These 100 applicants will come in groups of nationalit'es and there will be an opportunity for ceremony. Having the report of the examiner, the court will have time for dignity of bearing, and time to d'gnify the proceedings, whereas, to-day, it is virtually done helter-skelter.

Mr. RAKER. As a matter of fact the method of examination you have just described only applies to the few large congested cit es. I have been in the Federal courts in California when they were passing upon naturalization cases, and the applicant is given a very thorough examination. He is also g ven a thorough examination by the examiner.

In the con

Mr. WILSON. That is true, however, in those congested cities. gested cities they rush them through, because the courts have not the time to devote to it.

Mr. RAKER. They have got the time, but they do not want to take the time. Mr. CRIST. Section 13, on page 26, contains the certificate of registration, and following that are certificates and forms of declaration and of petitions for naturalization, as they were adopted by the committee in the last Congress.

Section 14 specifies those who shall not be naturalized. It excludes anarchists and others. Under this section have been assembled all of those who are under the present law excluded, including alien enemies.

Mr. RAKER. Referring to the petition for naturalization, there is nothing in it now to require a man to state whether he is a white person, whether he is a Chinese, or anything else, is there?

Mr. CRIST. The statute limits it to white persons.

Mr. RAKER. I want to call your attention to that particularly, because that is one contention that is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is contended in that case that inasmuch as that matter was not in the requirement or in the application, the applicant can be naturalized notwithstanding the general law on the subject. I want you to think about that. The CHAIRMAN. I notice on page 23 you require this statement: "I am able to speak and read the English language."

Mr. CRIST. That was in the other petition. Whatever is required to be signed by the applicant is in English.

Section 14 relates to the group that is excluded. Section 15 relates to the fees. There is an increase in the fees, as stated there, from $1 to $2 for the declaration, from $2 to $5 for filing the petition and the order, and from $2 to $5 for the certificate. In this case the certificate fee is not required if the naturalization is denied. The same amount of money is provided in this to be retained by the clerk of the court as his portion of the fee as now retained by the clerk of the court. To illustrate, the declaration is $1 and he retains one-half of it. In this, while the fee for the declaration is raised to $2 the clerk is authorized to retain only 50 cents, and he is not allowed to retain more than $3,000..

Mr. SABATH. That has worked an injustice in large cities and that must be amended, because some of these clerks naturalize 3,000 or 4,000 men, while others, perhaps, only naturalize 200 or 300.

The CHAIRMAN. I have an amendment here to cover that.

Mr. SABATH. And they need more fees.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want the amendment now?

Mr. SABATH. No. I just wanted to call that to your attention and we will take it up later.

Mr. CRIST. Section 16, page 43, relates to the action of the clerk in filing the petition and posting the notice. Section 17 allows them to be filed at any time and fixes the time of hearing substantially as it is in the present law. Section 18 requires that every final hearing shall be in open court. Section 19 reserves the right of the Government to appear. Section 20 requires the declaration

Mr. RAKER (interposing). “Reserves the right to appear.” What do you mean by that?

Mr. CRIST. Well, the Government has the right and it reserves it. It is a reservation.

Mr. Box. Is it a part of the present law?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Under this bill will it be compulsory for any public official to be present?

Mr. CRIST. No, sir; and it never has been compulsory.

Mr. RAKER. It was at one time when the district attorneys used to appear. Mr. CRIST. I beg pardon; that was under an appropriation made for the Department of Justice.

Mr. RAKER. But it was a statutory provision.

Mr. CRIST. The same kind of a provision relates to the naturalization examiners. The law authorizes the Secretary of Labor to appoint examiners to carry out the purposes of the naturalization act, and the language is even stronger with regard to the examiners than it was with regard to the district attorneys. Section 20 simply defines how the different papers shall be made out, namely, in duplicate and triplicate, and carries out the present law and regulations. Section 21 relates to the binding of naturalization papers. Section 22 is based on section 15 of the present law, and I presume you all know what section 15 is. It authorizes district attorneys to institute proceedings to cancel certificates of naturalization. The act of May 9, 1918, also exended that authority to the head of the Bureau of Naturalization and it is included in here. The penal provisions follow in sections 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, as in the present law.

Mr. RAKER. Before you pass this other section I want to ask you a question about it. Mr. Box. Which one?

Mr. RAKER. Section 22. I want to ask you about it so that the examiners may have an opportunity to present their views about it. If a man appears before a court with his witnesses and soft pedals himself through, and he is an anarchist at the time, and within five years after he has received his papers he commences to practice anarchy, there is no provision whereby you can take his naturalization papers from him.

Mr. CRIST. There are judicial decisions by which that has been done, in construing the present law.

Mr. RAKER. Do they go that far?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. There have been several cases, and the Wursterbarth case is an outstanding case.

Mr. RAKER. If all the proceedings are in good shape, but within two, three, four, or five years he begins to practice sabotage, becomes an anarchist or I. W. W., and it can be established that at the time he was naturalized he held those views, can you cancel his certificate of naturalization?

Mr. CRIST. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. We intend to provide a means for reopening such a case. Mr. RAKER. I know, but I wanted particularly to get Mr. Crist's view and the view of these gentlemen who have had experience in this matter as to whether or not a case similar to the one I have suggested would come within the present statute as well as within the proposed amendment.

Mr. CRIST. It would; yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. I wanted to call it to your attention and if it would not, have you prepare an amendment to cover that proposition.

Mr. FREE. Have you a reference to the cases you have mentioned?

Mr. CRIST. I can not give you a reference offhand.

Mr. FREE. Will you get them for me?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. Put them in the hearing at this point.

Mr. CRIST. Very well, sir. These cases are all collected in the case of Schurmann v. United States (264 Fed., 917). Section 28 continues the criminal provision of the prevailing laws after this law is enacted. Section 29 is substantially the same, and these two sections are taken bodily out of the act of 1906. Section 30 is a reenactment of the same authority contained in the act of 1906 regarding the making of rules and regulations. Section 31 contains the same wording that is found in the act of 1906, and that relates to persons owing permanent allegiance to the United States. Section 32 takes up the question of the citizenship of women, and section 33 relates to the citizenship of children and how it shall be derived. Both of those are taken bodily from bill No. 9, and that is true regarding all the rest of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Who represents the first naturalization district?
Mr. CRIST. Mr. Farrell.

Mr. RAKER. May I ask, for the benefit of the committee, that there be printed, following Mr. Crist's testimony, a compilation of existing statutes relating to naturalization, as well as the provisions of the Revised Statutes which relate to it, so that we may have them in concrete form and all together, and so that the committee and the House may readily turn to them and knew what the existing laws are.

Mr. FREE. Add to that, Judge, those decisions.

Mr. RAKER. And the decisions.

Mr. SABATH. There is a compilation of the naturalization laws.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the judge wants us to get up a compilation and put the laws in parallel columns.

Mr. RAKER. Have you such a compilation, Mr. Crist?

Mr. CRIST. No, sir.

Mr. RAKER. But you can furnish it?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Do you not think it would be convenient for the committee?
Mr. CRIST. I think so.

Mr. RAKER. Then I ask that that be done.

Mr. KLECZKA. We now have a pamphlet containing the naturalization laws, and this would mean reprinting that pamphlet in the hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. I think what the judge is driving at is the printing in parallel columns of the present laws and the proposed changes.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Crist has not called our attention to a number of provisions which are repealed and that ought to be provided for.

Mr. CRIST. I beg your pardon.

Section 41, on page 64, brings together the acts and parts of acts that are contemplated in the repeal and the latter part of that retains certain acts that might be repealed because of the title of the bill.

Mr. RAKER. That is the reason I made my suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. We will do that but we will not do it this morning, as we will not have time.

Mr. RAKER. I simply ask that Mr. Crist prepare it and that it go in the record. The CHAIRMAN. We have it partly prepared.

Mr. RAKER. If he will do it, that is all I ask.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Farrell.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES FARRELL, CHIEF NATURALIZATION EXAMINER, BOSTON, MASS.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Farrell, you are from Boston and represent district No. 1? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think all the members of the committee feel that we owe a great deal to the naturalization chief examiners and their assistants for their 、 efforts to bring to citizenship only those who are truly desirous of citizenship. I think most of the members of this committee have realized for some time that the laws were unwieldly in some places. We have realized also that the war created some changed conditions and we have realized that the work of the examiners has been particularly hard. Therefore, we are very anxious to revise the laws, if possible. You have heard the general summary of this bill, and I understand you have read the bill. Are you prepared this morning to discuss any phase of it? I would like to say to you and the others that in discussing the bill and criticizing any part of it you will not tread on any one's toes; we want free discussion and the sharper your criticism the better.

Mr. FARRELL. Then you want it in a general way only and not with regard to the particular arrangement of the sections?

The CHAIRMAN. Just as you please.

Mr. FARRELL. Then, first, the matter of arrangement should be taken care of, because it is not in proper shape at all. I think the bill is in the right direction. The judges in the big centers depend on us to a great extent and they will sign. things for us without reading them.

Mr. Box. Who does that?

Mr. FARRELL. The Federal courts.
The CHAIRMAN. They do what?

Mr. FARRELL. They have been relying more all the time upon the naturalization examiners for the simple reason that they have not a possible chance to inquire into the things themselves in detail. You know how, on big proceedings, like reorganizations, etc., orders are presented and a judge has not any possible chance to inquire into them but relies upon the reputation of the man who presents the matter to him, and it has got into that state with regard to the naturalization examiners, not by reason of any desire on their part or any great effort on their part to get this status. It has been thrust on them. Mr. Box. I understood your language to be that they would sign anything. Mr. FARRELL. Well, I mean within reason.

Mr. Box. I understand.

Mr. SABATH. Thus showing that they have confidence in the department?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes; it is reputation that counts.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, under the system that has grown up, you expect your final decision in these cases to stand?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You send it up to the court with that in view?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And in nearly all cases it does stand?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been overruled in any cases in recent years?

Mr. FARRELL. Not any of them.

I have put up doubtful questions and sometimes they have not gone the way I expected they would go, but those were cases where I had a doubt.

Mr. Box. When you say they sometimes go in a way you do not expect them to go I want to know what your general conclusion has been, without reflecting on anybody, as to whether or not they have not been as strict as you think they

should have been or have been too strict? Without naming anybody, I just want the benefit of your thought on that subject, that is, on those doubtful

cases.

Mr. FARRELL. These doubtful cases were not doubtful so much on the facts as on the law. Our recommendations on the facts practically go all the time. Mr. Box. But you said that sometimes they did not go as you expected them to go, and I want to know whether you felt they were too strict or too liberal in the interpretation of the law.

Mr. FARRELL. Well, I am not prepared to give you any figures on that, but sometimes they are one way and sometimes the other way.

Mr. Box. That is what I want to get at-the facts.

Mr. WILSON. With reference to your statement that the naturalization courts rely almost entirely upon the report of the examiner, is it your judgment that In these centers, like Boston, the average naturalization case gets proper consideration by the court?

Mr. FARRELL. No; but it gets all the consideration the court can give it. That is all.

Mr. WILSON. That is just the point in which I am interested. Then, in the big centers, the courts for want of time and opportunity to know the facts rely almost exclusively upon the report of the examiner in an individual naturalization case?

Mr. FARRELL. Practically so. That may be illustrated by the fact that in the Federal court in Massachusetts there is a standing order of court referring every petitioner and his witnesses to the chief naturalization examiner and the examiners for investigation. That is a standing order of court. Now, may I say that the superior court throughout the State has no rule, but it is acting. practically on the same basis, and the thing has developed to that extent that even outside of Massachusetts, in New Hampshire, they have asked me I do not think I am going afield, but if I am I wish you would tell me.

Mr. WILSON. No; this is really the main feature about this court proceeding. Mr. FARRELL. They have asked me to make two lists, one a list of those to. whom the naturalization service makes no objection and the other a list of those to whom it has objections. Now, the development of that, and I have the correspondence, will probably be along this line that those to whom the service makes objection will not be notified to come into court until they request a hearing of the clerk or that the hearing of their petitions may be postponed if the available time of the court will be taken up with the list of those concerning whom there is no objection, or they may be listed for hearing in order of their filing but continued for a reasonable time during which they must qualify before the examiner. In Massachusetts the superior court gives 80 full days to naturalization.

Mr. Box. In what time?

Mr. FARRELL. Eighty full days in a year; that is 80 working days, too, and in the Federal court there are about 40 half days or 21 full days, but they have to be supplemented by getting an outside judge to sit in order to clean up the congested docket, as it does become congested from time to time.

Mr. Box. How many cases will they dispose of in one of those days? Mr. FARRELL. In the superior court we have disposed of as many as, well, around 400 at times, practically.

Mr. FREE. In one day?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. I judge the situation there is about the same as it is in the other congested centers.

Mr. FARRELL. Three hundred would probably be the average in a few large counties, but, taking all the counties into consideration, the figures per day are from 50 up.

Mr. WILSON. Judge Box and myself sat in the supreme court in New York through the naturalization hour, and they rendered judgment on 126 cases in 96 minutes. I judge that would be about the average in all these congested centers.

Mr. FARRELL. That would be 126 cases in an hour and a half.

Mr. WILSON. Yes.

Mr. FARRELL. That is a little swift.

Mr. WILSON. Well, it looked a little swift to me. I am sure the judge was a fine man, but I know he left me under the impression that he was not satisfied himself but he was doing the best he could; and I was impressed with this fact, that there ought to be some kind of additional machinery in these centers even

« ÎnapoiContinuă »