if you had to create a judge just for naturalization purposes and just run that. court entirely for the purpose of naturalization. Now, I will ask you this question, because I think your experience will be worth something: Are you satisfied with the present naturalization proceedings? Are you satisfied that the proof is sufficient to let us know that we are making an American citizen out of a man qualified to be an American citizen?

Mr. FARRELL. I am not satisfied with it, and neither do I think anybody else that is in touch with it is satisfied, principally for the reason that I think the applicants and the public are dissatisfied. I do not think it is a square deal in any event; that is, I do not mean the applicant is not treated justly, but that the manner of handling an applicant and his witnesses is reprehensible. I may say that the Federal judge in Massachusetts makes an address to the applicants for citizenship every time he sits, and he begins it by saying: "Gentlemen, naturalization proceedings in this court are conducted in a quick manner, and they probably lack that kind of conduct which you would expect here; but you will realize that the applicant and his witnesses have satisfied the Naturalization Service that he is eligible before he comes in here, and you should not be scandalized with the quick dispatch of business."

And then he addresses them on the history of the Government and the troubles it had, the meaning of citizenship, and that it is not altogether a matter of the enjoyment of rights but that there are corresponding duties. He generally spends 20 minutes in that address. That is because he is dissatisfied with the conditions and he wants to make it plain to them that it has to be conducted in that manner simply because of conditions. Some of those conditions are the buildings, the lack of space, etc.

Mr. WILSON. Is it your opinion also that the act of rendering final judgment in these cases is not as impressive as it ought to be on the individual alien? Mr. FARRELL. Yes. I think, as a general thing, he and his witnesses are not satisfied that they have been treated properly for the time they have put into it and the effort they have made.

The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, after a man is here the right length of time, has filled out all the papers, secured the witnesses, and made the necessary affidavits, he quits work on a certain day and comes into court with his two witnesses-taking the witnesses away from their work-expecting some big procedure in court?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And he and his witnesses, along with a lot of other applicants and their witnesses, are all jammed together, herded in the court, and then get the once over and oath of allegiance?

66

Mr. FARRELL. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. And they do not know what it all means when it is through, except that something awfully quick has happened?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. And they, expecting the proceedings at which they receive their final citizenship to be dignified, find that it goes as a matter of routine, and it appears as though the court and everybody else are glad to get rid of them, and they are glad to get rid of it and get out?

Mr. FARRELL. That is so. But in the Federal court I speak of that is offset in a way by the address of the judge, and in the State court the congestion is not so great.

Mr. WILSON. But the judge does the best he can do?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes; and the Federal judge at Boston because of the prior examination by the Naturalization Service has expressed himself as satisfied that the same results are obtained as were on a more lengthy examination before the court at times past when only a comparative small number of cases were heard daily.

Mr. WILSON. Considering the amount of work he has to do, and he generally tries to impress all of the applicants as he would like to impress each individual, I imagine?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. What States are in your district?

Mr. FARRELL. The New England States.

Mr. RAKER. What congested centers are there except Boston?

Mr. FARRELL. There is a congestion in the superior court throughout the State of Massachusetts, in the large counties like Worcester, Bristol, Hampden, and Essex, and that congestion, of course, could be relieved if the State court, which has 29 judges, could afford to give more time to naturalization.

Mr. RAKER. Outside of the congested districts you have named in the States in your district, all of the State courts have jurisdiction in naturalization? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir; courts of unlimited jurisdiction.

Mr. RAKER. And they proceed to naturalize?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir; that is in Maine the supreme court; in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Connecticut the superior court naturalizes, and in the latter State there are in addition three city and one district court naturalizing, and in Vermont the county courts do but very little or practically no naturalization.

Mr. RAKER. What you have stated relative to the method and manner of naturalization in the congested districts does not apply to the State courts in all of the States in your district, except in the congested districts?

Mr. FARRELL. That is right. Of course, I have probably failed to mention Bridgeport, Conn., and a few places like that.

Mr. RAKER. Well, outside of the congested districts, is not that true?
Mr. FARRELL. That is true.

Mr. RAKER. When a man goes before a court the court examines the witnesses, examines the applicant, the hearing is conducted in proper form before the court, the applicant takes the oath of allegiance in open court, and reasonable, proper, and dignified time is taken for the naturalization, is not that right? Mr. FARRELL. That is so.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, reasonable and dignified time where there are no naturalizations of any consequence?

Mr. RAKER. No; that does not apply. I have been in a good many places and that does not apply except in the congested districts, and I think the record ought to show, to the credit of the State courts and Federal courts where they are not congested, that they do give time, and ample time, to the hearing of witnesses and applicants. From your experience, is not that so?

Mr. FARRELL. That is so, and the dignity corresponds with the dignity of the court. If it is a superior court things are transacted in a very, very proper fashion; if it is an inferior court, like a city court-and we have a few of them in Connecticut-the change is evident.

Mr. RAKER. So we ought not to break down the practice of taking the witnesses and the applicants before the court in open court; we ought not to break down that procedure simply to rectify the method of conducting cases on final naturalization in the congested courts.

Mr. VAILE. Perhaps not, but we should rectify the method in some way. Mr. FARRELL. I would answer that in this way: If I were satisfied that the applicant and his witnesses were satisfied that it was necessary and the public thought it was necessary, I would leave it so. Mind you, we had in Connecticut a stenographic report of all the proceedings of the court, because it was required under their statutes, but nobody ever paid any attention to those reports, except once or twice in criminal cases. I have not had occasion to refer to those reports, and I am sure the court and nobody else has had any occasion. Consequently, it is very heavy for the very short hearing to compel the witnesses to attend if there is not something to be questioned or something to be developed. The purpose, I take it, would be to relieve the public. It is not to relieve the court so much, but I think that ought to be a consideration. Certainly, it is not to relieve the naturalization examiners. I think that the purpose of that exemption of the witnesses from attending the final hearing, if there is no objection made by the Naturalization Service, is to relieve the public, and by reason of such exemption at a session of court which may mean long waiting around it may be possible to get a much higher type of witnesses to the petitions of applicants for naturalization.

Mr. SABATH. In other words, if the Naturalization Service is satisfied from a former examination of the witnesses that the man is qualified for citizenship, they do not see any need of those witnesses appearing merely for show on the day when the applicant is sworn in?

Mr. FARRELL. That is a fact.

Mr. WILSON. What is the use of having witnesses attend unless they are to testify?

Mr. SABATH. But they have been examined before by the examiners.

Mr. RAKER. I was simply trying to get the fact before the committee so that the House and the country might have it, that outside of the congested districts the practice of having the witnesses to appear and of having the applicant sworn and examined was working fairly well.

76405-21-SER 10-2

Mr. FARRELL. Fairly well, except that it appears to be a rather heavy proceeding.

Mr. RAKER. The proceeding under such a plan would be incomplete and would be absolutely under the control of the examiner and his assistants, without any chance of going back of it, unless there was a written record made of the testimony of the witnesses. In other words, the court would adjudge the question of the man's competency to be admitted not upon what the testimony might be or what it might not be but solely and entirely upon the statement of the examiner, upon which he would have to rely and back of which he could not go.

Mr. FARRELL. There would be the testimony given before the examiner. Mr. RAKER. I am talking of the case where he acquires citizenship. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see if the question is clear to me. The presumption is that he would have the written testimony of the whole examination, and under the present law that written testimony would go up to the court. In a place where the court had 300 cases he would have 300 files of written testimony, and if he should undertake to look into that testimony in order to check up the examiner he certainly would be many weeks, or at least many days, in disposing of the 300 cases.

Mr. RAKER. Let us not talk of what might be an inconvenience, but let us get the facts of the case. If the examiner did not make a written report of

the testimony and file it, and if the court should decide the case upon the applicant appearing before him alone, there then would be no record in which you could find what the witnesses testified to or whether they qualified as to their competency or not.

Mr. FARRELL. There would not be in court, but there would be in the Naturalization Service.

Mr. RAKER. The Naturalization Service now prepares a full record?
Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. If those records were filed with the clerk as a part of the record in the case, then the court would have the record and the report of the examiner, just as would be the case in a report made by a commissioner or master in chancery, the court having the testimony of the applicant before him before passing upon the case.

Mr. FARRELL. In answer to that I would say that there is very little availability for filing things in naturalization proceedings. The petition is in bound form and the declaration is in bound form. Generally there is not any other place to file anything, unless you attach it to the petition and destroy your book. That may be a detail, but it is really a matter for consideration. Consequently if there is to be a record it must be made in such form that it will be uniform throughout the country and will be available for filing and consideration at the place where it is going to be filed. It will probably be attached to the petition in that bound volume.

Mr. SABATH. Where it can be found if needed in the future?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Unless there is a record sworn to by the witnesses obtainable at some place or a report of the testimony of the witnesses how are they to be proceeded against if they swear falsely or commit perjury? With such a record as that anybody could testify before the commissioner to anything, whether it be false or otherwise. The applicant and his witnesses might fool the examiner, and there would be no chance to find out what the facts were, except to finally bring the applicant before him and ask a few questions. Mr. FARRELL. I think that is a matter of detail for the committee. Mr. RAKER. I am asking for your judgment on it.

Mr. FARRELL. My judgment is that while it would be advisable in order to meet every possible contingency, I do not think that it is really necessary, because those cases in which a permanent record would be advisable I think could be provided for in advance. I really think that. If you should ask me how I would determine the case that should be permanently recorded I could not tell you until I had all of the witnesses before me. I say that because I think it would be overloading those records with a whole lot of stuff that the public would not want to put in them. At the present time I keep a record of each petitioner which shows not only where he was born, where he is living now, and the mode in which he came to the country, but also showing where he has lived and where he has been employed for a period of about six or eight years.

Sometimes I go back further than that. That record is in the office, and there is an index to the record of each petitioner who has been through it.

Mr. RAKER. Where is there anything on file relating to the examination of the witnesses that upon production, with proof of the making of false statements, could be used in prosecuting anyone for perjury?

Mr. FARRELL. In answer to that, I can say that I do not believe there is anything except the pleadings; those are the affidavits of the witnesses which are attached to and made a part of the petition. Such affidavit is a statement that the witness has known the petitioner for the statutory period required by law and knows him to be a man of good moral character.

Mr. RAKER. Then it leaves the witness who appears before the commissioner under the proposed plan with his mind at perfect ease, so far as the pains and penalties for perjudy are concerned, as to what he may have told the examiner. If the examiner reports to the court that the witnesses appeared and made the statements, although what the witnesses testified to may have been perjury, there would be no chance to get around it.

Mr. RAKER. If that is admitted, then we are seeking to relieve the witnesses from appearing before the court on the final hearing.

Mr. Box. Are all of the essential facts embodied in the petitions and affidavits of the witnesses that are kept as a part of the record? Are all of the fundamental facts entitling a man to naturalization a part of the record that is kept by you in the manner you described a while ago?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir; but they would not be the basis for criminal proceedings if the perjury consists only of false testimony. There is penalty for making such false affidavits.

Mr. SABATH. Is it not true that you always investigate the applicant, and is it not a fact that if you are not absolutely certain as to the evidence of a witness, you even investigate him?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITE. You satisfy yourself as to the credibility of the witnesses? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. Is it not a fact that you have already in many instances recommended that the citizenship of such witnesses, who were naturalized citizens, should be canceled, or do you not show that they did not secure their citizenship in accordance with the law?

Mr. FARRELL. No, sir. That used to be done early in the administration of the naturalization statute of 1906, but we have long since passed that up. If we have a doubt, or are satisfied that the witness's own citizenship is in doubt, we notify the petitioner that he will have to have another witness. That comes about by reason of the fact that we see them before they file their petitions in the Federal courts, and if that should happen outside in a State court, the applicant would lose out. He would lose out if his witness was not a citizen, because we would not have seen them until after the petition was filed, and then the petition would not have been properly verified.

The CHAIRMAN. That is to say, a different method of examination is followed in the State courts from, that followed by the naturalization examiners of witnesses in cases pending before the Federal courts?

Mr. FARRELL. The difference is that in one case that is, in the Federal courts we see them before the petition is filed, and in the other case we do not, because we have not examiners enough to go to all the State courts to see the persons who file petitions.

Mr. SABATH. But before the application is acted upon you do see the applicant and do see the witnesses?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Box. You say that you do not have sufficient examiners to do certain work. I want to know if you feel that you have sufficient examiners to do the work you are now doing in your district, or the work that is required by the law as it now exists. Have you a sufficient force to do it adequately for the protection of the United States?

Mr. FARRELL. I have not enough to do it in the way I would like to do it, or as I consider it my duty to do it, and, at the same time, attend to the things that are somewhat connected up with it, such as the educational classes, which is a development that I am in favor of. I am sending examiners into the classes in the evening for the examination of aliens who are applicants for citizenship. I am sending examiners to those public schools to examine those classes, and I have not men enough to do that.

Mr. Box. You spoke of the court examining three or four hundred cases in a day. How many examiners have you to do the work that that court presumes that you have in all New England?

Mr. FARRELL. In New England?

Mr. Box. In your district.

Mr. FARRELL. I have 10 examiners besides myself. One of them is a clerk, but we call him an examiner.

Mr. Box. How many cases are passed on by the courts in your district in a year?

Mr. FARRELL. The petitions for 1921 were 22,469, including 2,437 soldiers. Mr. Box. That means that each one of those examiners had 2,469 applicants and twice as many witnesses to look up, does it not?

Mr. FARRELL. No, sir; that is not quite true, because they are not apport oned equally.

Mr. Box. I mean on an average.

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir; but that is explainable, too, because of the fact that in some places many cases come to us. This pertains to the Federal courts at Boston and Providence, R. I. In those courts the petitioner comes to us before he files with h's witnesses, and we do not have to go out to see them.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us see what that involves: The petitioner with his two witnesses comes to your office in Boston?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, the applicants from your district?

Mr. FARRELL. From the Federal court; that is, the district court of Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, from the whole State of Massachusetts?

Mr. FARRELL. That is the jurisdiction of the court, the whole State of Massachusetts.

The CHAIRMAN. So he comes in with two witnesses to see you after traveling some distance?

Mr. FARRELL. Oh, no; the traveling is on the other end of it; the traveling is done in coming to that court. The petition is prepared and from the clerk's office he is sent over to my office.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all preparatory to his final appearance in court with the same two witnesses?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You said 1921. Did you mean for the fiscal year ending June 30 last?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. You have not examined all of the 22,000 so far, have you?

Mr. FARRELL. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. That is, 22,000 cases examined?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SABATH. I mean investigated.

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CABLE. I think this man's records ought to go in as to the number of cases examined.

Mr. Box. And the number of examiners.

Mr. FARRELL. The Bureau of Naturalization has all these figures.

The CHAIRMAN. But they do not reach us in that way.

Mr. RAKER. How many of those examined were finally rejected, and how many were rejected by examiners, and how many were rejected by the courts? Mr. FARRELL. I do not have that information in that detail, but the total number of dismissals was 992 for 1921.

Mr. Box. Less than 1,000?

Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. How many were denied by the courts?

Mr. FARRELL. Well, that is the number.

Mr. RAKER. How many were denied by examiners?

Mr. FARRELL. I can not tell you that.

Mr. RAKER. Will you insert those facts in the record?

Mr. FARRELL. Well, that would require sonre time and the going over of these records.

Mr. SABATH. They do not deny them; they simply continue them from time to time and do not give them a chance to get into court. That is the way it is done.